You are here: Parliament home page
> Parliamentary business > Publications and Records > Hansard
> Commons Debates > Daily Hansard - Debate
source:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm131204/debtext/131204-0002.htm#13120494000002
4 Dec 2013 : Column 937
Recall of Elected Representatives
Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)
1.34 pm
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to permit voters to recall their
elected representatives in specified circumstances; and for connected
purposes.
All MPs are aware of just how strained the relationship between people
and power has become. We have reached a depressing point in our history
when even thoughtful commentators find it easier just to agree limply
when they hear someone shrieking that all politicians are liars and
thieves. To mount a defence goes against the collective popular gut
feeling and requires more energy than most people have.
What worries me is how low that issue is on the Westminster political
agenda. There is a sense that it is just a passing problem and that, in
time, people will come back to the fold because there is no real
alternative. Some even blame the expenses scandal, as if everything was
okay before 2009. We know that it was not. Voter turnout has been
decreasing for years. The memberships of political parties have
plummeted to miserable levels. Among voters, there is an overwhelming
sense that politics has become so detached and remote that, no matter
how they vote or even whether they vote, nothing can change. I think
that we are at an important turning point.
Democracy has evolved in this country, on the whole without too much
violence. We should consider the first Reform Act of 1832, when the
vast social transformation that had been brought about by
industrialisation meant that politicians had no alternative but to
yield to society’s demand that they broaden the franchise and give more
people more ownership of their democracy. That happened again in 1867,
when reforms were brought in that effectively doubled the number of men
who were able to vote. More reforms followed in 1884. In 1918, the
first women were allowed to vote, albeit only those over the age of 30
and with property to their name. That changed in 1928, when everyone
over the age of 21 could vote, whether they were a man or a woman. In
1969, the voting age was lowered to 18. In one way or another, each of
those steps has involved Parliament, sometimes reluctantly, handing
power to people and edging us towards a purer democracy. Today, no one
questions the wisdom of any of those reforms. I believe that it is time
for us to take another step towards a purer democracy.
In the past few years, our world has changed beyond recognition. We
have access to instant news from tens of thousands of different
sources. Anyone can create a media platform and become a media baron.
We no longer depend on a small handful of newspaper proprietors to
inform our politics. Whereas voters used to rely on the odd newsletter
and occasional newspaper report to find out about their MP, today’s
voters can see in real time what their MP is saying and doing, and
whether and how they are voting.
While those vast changes have taken hold, the way in which we do
democracy has stood still. We still have a system in which, once
elected, an MP is almost entirely insulated from any pressure from his
or her constituents until five years or so later in the next general
election.
4 Dec 2013 : Column 938
There is no mechanism that allows voters to sack their MP. An MP can
switch to an extreme party, systematically break each and every promise
that they made before the election, refuse to turn up in Parliament or
refuse to engage in any meaningful sense with their electorate, but
unless they are jailed for more than 12 months an MP is effectively
unmoveable. It is therefore no surprise that, from the moment an
election is over, the pressure is all top-down from the party, not
bottom-up from the constituents.
In the heat of the expenses scandal, the leaders of all three
mainstream parties seemed finally to understand the full extent of the
public disillusionment with politics. Perhaps in a panic, they came up
with a powerful idea: they promised to bring in a system of recall that
would allow voters to hold their MPs to account at all times. That was
a straightforward promise and recognition of the problem that showed a
willingness to trust voters and to treat them as grown-ups.
However, now that the Deputy Prime Minister has been asked to produce a
recall Bill, he has come up with an idea that is so far removed from
genuine recall that it is recall only in name. It is an attempt to
convey an impression of democratic reform without empowering voters in
any sense at all. I am yet to find anyone inside or outside Parliament
who supports the Government Bill.
True recall is a very simple mechanism. If a percentage of
constituents—usually around 20%—sign a petition in a given time frame,
they earn the right to have a referendum in which voters are asked
whether they want to recall their MP. If more than half of the voters
say yes, there is a subsequent by-election. By contrast, under the
Government’s proposals, power will move up, not down, and to a
parliamentary Committee, not to voters. The Committee on
Standards—whose Chairman, incidentally, has already said that he does
not want these extra powers—would determine, using extraordinarily
narrow criteria, whether an MP qualified for recall. If that happened,
there would be no recall referendum in which Members could defend
themselves against whatever charges had been raised. There would
effectively be an immediate by-election, fought in the national
context. No Member, good or bad, would stand a chance under that
process, not least because no association would be crazy enough to
reselect a Member once the Committee had pointed its finger.
Instead of bringing in reforms to empower people to hold this
institution to account, which was what all three parties promised, the
Government want to introduce a system that empowers the institution to
hold itself to account. Given that, I say good luck to the mavericks,
the independent-minded MPs who are here on their own without the
protection of party. Let us be clear that under the Government’s plans,
an MP could refuse to perform any one of the functions required of them
and still not qualify for recall. If the Government push ahead with the
proposal, it will merely confirm all the prejudices that people have
about politics. Voters will see that despite all the promises, they
have not been empowered at all, they have been duped.
Perhaps putting it more politely than I have, the Political and
Constitutional Reform Committee examined the Government’s Bill and said
that their version of recall would
“reduce public confidence in politics by creating expectations that are
not fulfilled.”
4 Dec 2013 : Column 939
The Deputy Prime Minister has explained why the Government want a form
of recall that is not actually recall, repeatedly expressing fears
about what he describes as kangaroo courts. However, he must understand
that, under a recall system, the only court is the constituency and the
only jurors his constituents. It is true, of course, that there could
be vexatious attempts to collect enough signatures to get rid of a
decent MP, but in the average constituency the threshold would be about
15,000 voters. By contrast, most local parties would consider
themselves lucky if they had more than 500 members. If 15,000 of my
constituents signed a petition demanding my recall, I would feel a
little silly trying to blame it on my opponents locally.
It is worth pointing out that recall already happens all over the
world. It is not a novel idea, and it happens in its purest form. As
far as I am aware, nowhere are there any examples at all of successful
vexatious recall campaigns. In truth, the arguments against genuine
recall, when we boil them down, are arguments against democracy itself.
For voters, of course recall makes sense. It would allow them to keep
their MPs on their toes, even those in safe seats, and give them a
much-needed sense of ownership over their democracy. However, I
maintain that true recall is in our interest too, because it would
begin the process of healing the broken relationship between people and
power. In a true democracy, it would make no sense for voters to
dismiss Parliament with the sweeping generalisations that are so normal
today, because in such a democracy people would truly have the MP they
deserved. If they were unhappy with their representative, they would
have no one to blame but themselves.
Some years ago my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell)
introduced a Bill similar to the one that I propose today, and he
described parliamentary democracy as
“our supreme contribution to the happiness of mankind.”—[Official
Report, 13 October 2009; Vol. 497, c. 168.]
He was right, but our fragile democracy has flourished because it has
evolved, and it must evolve again.
Question put.
The House divided:
Ayes 127, Noes 17.
Division No. 150]
[
1.43 pm
AYES
Anderson, Mr David
Bebb, Guto
Beith, rh Sir Alan
Bingham, Andrew
Birtwistle, Gordon
Blackman, Bob
Bottomley, Sir Peter
Brady, Mr Graham
Bruce, Fiona
Buckland, Mr Robert
Burstow, rh Paul
Byles, Dan
Campbell, Mr Gregory
Campbell, rh Sir Menzies
Carmichael, Neil
Caton, Martin
Chope, Mr Christopher
Clark, Katy
Colvile, Oliver
Cooper, Rosie
Corbyn, Jeremy
Crockart, Mike
Crouch, Tracey
Cryer, John
Davies, Geraint
Davies, Glyn
Dodds, rh Mr Nigel
Dorries, Nadine
Dowd, Jim
Edwards, Jonathan
Esterson, Bill
Evans, Graham
Evans, Mr Nigel
Farron, Tim
Field, rh Mr Frank
Field, Mark
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Fuller, Richard
Gapes, Mike
Garnier, Mark
Gilbert, Stephen
Godsiff, Mr Roger
Goldsmith, Zac
Halfon, Robert
Hancock, Mr Mike
Hart, Simon
Heath, Mr David
Heaton-Harris, Chris
Henderson, Gordon
Hendry, Charles
Herbert, rh Nick
Hermon, Lady
Hoey, Kate
Hollobone, Mr Philip
Hopkins, Kelvin
Hosie, Stewart
Howarth, rh Mr George
Hughes, rh Simon
Huppert, Dr Julian
Jackson, Mr Stewart
Jenkin, Mr Bernard
Kelly, Chris
Kennedy, rh Mr Charles
Latham, Pauline
Lefroy, Jeremy
Love, Mr Andrew
MacNeil, Mr Angus Brendan
Mactaggart, Fiona
Mann, John
McCartney, Jason
McCartney, Karl
McCrea, Dr William
McDonnell, Dr Alasdair
Metcalfe, Stephen
Mills, Nigel
Morris, Anne Marie
Morris, David
Morris, James
Mosley, Stephen
Nokes, Caroline
Nuttall, Mr David
O'Donnell, Fiona
Offord, Dr Matthew
Owen, Albert
Pawsey, Mark
Pearce, Teresa
Percy, Andrew
Phillips, Stephen
Pincher, Christopher
Raab, Mr Dominic
Randall, rh Sir John
Reckless, Mark
Redwood, rh Mr John
Reevell, Simon
Reid, Mr Alan
Ritchie, Ms Margaret
Robertson, Angus
Shannon, Jim
Simpson, David
Smith, Henry
Smith, Sir Robert
Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline
Spencer, Mr Mark
Stephenson, Andrew
Stevenson, John
Stewart, Bob
Stewart, Rory
Stuart, Mr Graham
Stunell, rh Sir Andrew
Swales, Ian
Tapsell, rh Sir Peter
Turner, Mr Andrew
Vickers, Martin
Walley, Joan
Walter, Mr Robert
Weatherley, Mike
Weir, Mr Mike
Wheeler, Heather
White, Chris
Whitehead, Dr Alan
Williams, Hywel
Williams, Mr Mark
Williams, Roger
Wilson, Sammy
Wishart, Pete
Wright, David
Wright, Simon
Tellers for the Ayes:
Caroline Lucas
and
Steve Baker
NOES
Aldous, Peter
Baron, Mr John
Beresford, Sir Paul
Brown, rh Mr Nicholas
Davies, David T. C.
(Monmouth)
Davies, Philip
Dobson, rh Frank
Donohoe, Mr Brian H.
Drax, Richard
Duddridge, James
Harris, Mr Tom
Llwyd, rh Mr Elfyn
Pritchard, Mark
Robertson, Mr Laurence
Skinner, Mr Dennis
Tomlinson, Justin
Williamson, Chris
Tellers for the Noes:
Mr Peter Bone
and
Mr Douglas Carswell
Question accordingly agreed to.
4 Dec 2013 : Column 940
Ordered,
That Zac Goldsmith, Mr Charles Kennedy, Mr Douglas Carswell, Robert
Halfon, Mr Graham Stuart, Nick de Bois, Mr Frank Field, Kate Hoey,
Steve Baker, Mark Reckless, Caroline Lucas and Mr Michael Meacher
present the Bill.
4 Dec 2013 : Column 941
Zac Goldsmith accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28
February, and to be printed (Bill 137).