Every week Kevin publishes his very own “Kev’s Column” on-line. This week he takes a look at the decision by MPs to reject the amendments moved by Zac Goldsmith which aimed to create a system of “Real Recall”.
The scenes in the House of Commons on Monday could have been lifted from the history books as MPs debated, then voted against, the amendments put forward by Zac Goldsmith to create a system of Real Recall.
Those who have studied the history of our Parliament will have read how in the early 1830’s it became clear our system needed to change, with a key part of that being trusting a wider number of people to have their say in elections. Some argued reform was a recipe for chaos, others that the country would be ruined if the Government had to please everyone. The reality has been very different with Britain moving to become a prosperous modern country with major changes brought in via elected Governments, not the type of constitutional crises seen in Russia, Germany or France over the last 100 years.
Listening to Zac’s speech on Monday reminded me of those who were confident enough in the early Nineteenth Century to argue for the wider democracy that the United States had introduced following their independence. His speech was passionate in that it relied on the fundamental principle that Parliament can and should trust those who elect it.
The idea of introducing a Recall system emerged at the height of the expenses scandal and followed a number of incidents where MPs who had got into trouble then clung onto their seats till the General Election. Some of the most notorious incidents saw an MP get widely criticised for their expenses or behaviour, announce they would be standing down at the following General Election, then spend a couple of years doing next to nothing, but still receiving the full salary and allowances for the job.
In the current Parliament Eric Joyce, the MP for Falkirk, has been at the centre of a number of incidents where his behaviour and judgment has been questioned. He has been arrested four times and convicted of Criminal Offences on 3 occasions since the last General Election in May 2010. The most high profile being the conviction he received for assaulting fellow MPs in a drunken incident in the Houses of Parliament. Whilst he resigned the Labour Party in March 2012, he is still an MP on the full salary that goes with the job and intends to stay until May 2015.
It is hard to think many people in Falkirk feel well represented by their current MP, yet as it stands an MP can only be expelled from the House if they are sent to prison for more than 1 year. Eric Joyce may be building up quite a record, but no single incident has produced a sentence that would see him expelled. Since 1954 no MP has been formally expelled from the House, although some have resigned just prior to receiving prison sentences that would have seen them removed from office.
It is right that the members of a democratic parliament are protected against those who wish to silence them, but these protections should be in your role as a representative of local people, not used to avoid having to face the consequences of your own actions. It is therefore time a system was introduced where a constituency can rid themselves of an MP who is embarrassing, rather than representing, them.
At the Conservative Party Conference I attended a discussion arranged by 38 Degrees, a campaign group that I do not always agree with, on their proposals for what they termed “Real Recall”. The current Government proposals envisage a system of recall only applying if the MP concerned has been found, by a Commons Committee, to have misbehaved.
The version that was championed by Zac Goldsmith earlier this week would see recall applying to any MP, provided a significant number of their constituents (20% of registered voters) signed a formal petition calling for such a vote to take place. As he made clear in the debate the protection with his system of recall is not in putting a definition on it, but in placing a clear threshold on it.
The only legitimate argument made against a system of recall is that MPs should be protected from ill-founded campaigns against them run by fringe groups. Yet 20% of registered voters in a constituency signing a formal recall request would not represent a fringe group or a malicious campaign by a few, but a genuine feeling of being unrepresented by their existing MP to the point where a Referendum on that person’s future should be held.
Some argued in the debate that the recall system Zac proposed would prevent good government because MPs could be toppled depending on how they voted on each issue, with many highlighting the Lib Dems u-turn on Tuition Fees. These arguments mostly relying on the theory set out by Edmund Burke in the 18th century as to an MPs role in owing people their judgment, not their support on particular issues.
Unlike many of those arguing against Real Recall I realise voters take a range of factors into account when deciding how they vote, not just how their MP voted on one matter. Any MP who takes the time to engage with their voters and explain difficult decisions has nothing to fear from a system of real recall, although voters will of course continue to express their views on individual issues at the ballot box in General Elections.
I am very pleased to say that Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) and Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) voted in favour of Zac’s amendments having already announced their support for them. Sadly Torbay’s MP decided to vote against.
If I get the opportunity to take part in a similar vote in the next Parliament I will ensure Torbay is part of reforming Parliament to make it more accountable, not cling to a view of it set by 18th century political philosophers.
In May 2015 I suspect many voters will recall that many of those who once presented themselves as champions of parliamentary reform, are now defenders of the status quo.