The Recall of MPs Act 2015 is a law which was designed by MPs not to be used. Yet this week – with the recall of the former Labour MP for Peterborough Fiona Onasanya – it now has been. A second and quite separate recall process is also currently under way in Brecon and Radnorshire, which may end in the removal of the Conservative MP Chris Davies. A third, in Antrim North, was unsuccessful against the DUP’s Ian Paisley in 2018.

All in all, the new law seems to be doing a good job. MPs have long cherished their right to independence, and to be accountable only at elections. The expenses scandal of 2009 undermined that. Four years ago, in spite of reservations among MPs that the process could be used mischievously or for partisan reasons – these are real concerns – the law was introduced. The conditions were kept tight. A recall process can only be triggered if an MP gets a prison sentence of 12 months or less, is suspended from the Commons for more than 10 days, or breaks the law on MPs’ expenses. If 10% of the MP’s voters then sign a petition, the MP is recalled and a byelection must be held.

That is precisely what happened to Ms Onasanya this week on May Day. Sent to prison for three months in January 2019 for perverting the course of justice after a speeding offence, she was subject to a recall petition in Peterborough. More than 19,000 voters signed it, 28% of the total. This was easily enough to recall her. Labour, which expelled Ms Onasanya in December, has now moved the writ for a byelection on 6 June.

Ms Onasanya got what she deserved. She does not merit sympathy. But there can be concerns about some of the special factors in her case. Most notably, the case against Ms Onasanya got far more publicity in the national media than the cases against Mr Paisley or Mr Davies. It was also logistically easier to sign the petition against her than it was in the other cases. There were 10 signing centres in Peterborough, which is a largely urban constituency, compared with three in Antrim North and six in Brecon and Radnorshire, both of which are largely rural.

None of this implies Ms Onasanya was unfairly treated. Publicity for an MP’s transgressions is important. If there is a petition, it should be straightforward to be able to sign it. Both things were true in Peterborough. The concerns are whether the same publicity and access applied in the other two cases and how this can be ensured. These issues deserve examination both by the Electoral Commission and by a select committee. The rules must be applied as evenly as possible.

Party politics makes this difficult. The political makeup of the three seats affected so far is widely different. Peterborough has often been one of the most marginal seats in Britain. The Brexit context also ensures this will be one of the most consequential byelections of recent times. All the same, it is important to ensure, when election law is at stake, that some seats are not more equal than others.