House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee Recall of MPs First Report of Session 2012–13 Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 21 June 2012 HC 373 [incorporating HC 1758-i-iv, Session 2010-12] Published on 28 June 2012 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to consider political and constitutional reform. Current membership Mr Graham Allen MP (Labour, Nottingham North) (Chair) Mr Christopher Chope MP (Conservative, Christchurch) Paul Flynn MP (Labour, Newport West) Sheila Gilmore MP (Labour, Edinburgh East) Andrew Griffiths MP (Conservative, Burton) Fabian Hamilton MP (Labour, Leeds North East) Simon Hart MP (Conservative, Camarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) Tristram Hunt MP (Labour, Stoke on Trent Central) Mrs Eleanor Laing MP (Conservative, Epping Forest) Mr Andrew Turner MP (Conservative, Isle of Wight) Stephen Williams MP (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West) Powers The Committee’s powers are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in Temporary Standing Order (Political and Constitutional Reform Committee). These are available on the Internet via http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmstords.htm. Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the internet at www.parliament.uk/pcrc. A list of Reports of the Committee in the present Parliament is at the back of this volume. The Reports of the Committee, the formal minutes relating to that report, oral evidence taken and some or all written evidence are available in a printed volume. Additional written evidence may be published on the internet only. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Joanna Dodd (Clerk), Hannah Stewart, Helen Kinghorn (Legal Specialists), Lorna Horton (Inquiry Manager), Louise Glen (Senior Committee Assistant), Jim Lawford (Committee Assistant) and Jessica Bridges-Palmer (Media Officer). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6287; the Committee’s email address is [email protected]. Recall of MPs 1 Contents Report Page Summary 3 1 Introduction 5 Overview of the Government’s proposals 5 International comparisons 6 2 The “triggers” for recall 9 Custodial sentence of 12 months or less 9 A resolution of the House of Commons 10 The role of MPs in the process 11 What is serious wrongdoing? 12 3 Conduct of the recall petition 16 Single designated location 16 Postal voting 17 Secrecy and intimidation 18 Northern Ireland 19 Signatures 20 Wording of petition 20 Henry VIII powers 21 Campaigning 21 The 10% threshold for signatures 22 4 The rationale for introducing recall 23 Increasing public confidence in the political process 23 How participatory are the proposals? 24 How often would recall be used? 24 What impact would the proposals have on the political landscape? 25 What are the alternatives? 26 Full Recall 26 The existing disciplinary powers of the House of Commons 28 Conclusions and recommendations 30 Appendix 1: YouGov polling results on recall 33 Formal Minutes 37 Witnesses 38 List of printed written evidence 38 List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament 39 Recall of MPs 3 Summary The Government has published a White Paper and draft Bill on the Recall of MPs, with the aim of restoring faith in the political process after the expenses scandal. We are not convinced that the proposals will increase public confidence in politics. Indeed, we fear that the restricted form of recall proposed could even reduce confidence by creating expectations that are not fulfilled. Under the Government’s proposals, constituents themselves would not be able to initiate a recall petition. The circumstances that the Government proposes would trigger a recall petition—if an MP received a custodial sentence of 12 months or less, or if the House of Commons resolved that there should be a recall petition following a case of “serious wrongdoing”—are so narrow that recall petitions would seldom, if ever, take place. Moreover, time has shown that the existing democratic and legal processes worked in removing the MPs who were shown to have been guilty of serious wrongdoing during the expenses scandal. In addition, we do not believe that there is a gap in the existing disciplinary procedures of the House of Commons which needs to be filled by the introduction of recall. The new House of Commons Committee on Standards, which will include lay members, already has the sanctions it needs to deal with MPs who are guilty of misconduct, including recommending the ultimate sanction of expulsion in cases of serious wrongdoing. The Committee must actively consider this option, and if it does make this recommendation, the House must be prepared to act. Given that the House has confirmed the recommendations of the Standards and Privileges Committee in the past, we are confident that it will continue to do so. We recommend that the Government abandon its plans to introduce a power of recall and use the parliamentary time this would free up to better effect. However, we recognise that the Government may be unwilling to discard a pledge made in the Coalition Agreement. We have therefore made some specific recommendations for improving the recall process if the Government decides to proceed with its proposals. In particular, we recommend that the Government replace the requirement for a single designated location for signing the recall petition with a requirement for multiple locations, to make signing the petition in person as convenient as possible for everyone in the constituency. We further recommend that people who have an existing postal vote should automatically be sent a postal signature sheet in the event of a recall petition. We urge the Government to ensure that constituents in Northern Ireland have the same options for signing a recall petition as constituents elsewhere in the UK, rather than being restricted to signing by post. Finally, although we understand why the Government has avoided defining “serious wrongdoing” in the draft Bill, we consider that there is a need for an indication of what constitutes such behaviour. We suggest that wrongdoing in the context of recall constitutes a breach of the code of conduct for MPs, while serious implies a breach of sufficient gravity that it would merit more than a period of suspension. Recall of MPs 5 1 Introduction 1. Recall describes a mechanism designed to allow the removal of elected representatives following a special election that takes place between scheduled elections. All three of the main political parties in the UK promised in their manifestos for the 2010 general election to introduce some form of recall for Members of Parliament.1 The Coalition: our programme for government, published by the incoming Government in May 2010, included the following commitment: We will bring forward early legislation to introduce a power of recall, allowing voters to force a by-election where an MP is found to have engaged in serious wrongdoing and having had a petition calling for a by-election signed by 10% of his or her constituents.2 2. The Government published a White Paper and draft Bill on Recall of MPs on 13 December 2011. On 15 December, we agreed to undertake the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill and published a call for evidence. Our witnesses included academic experts, campaign groups, MPs, House of Commons officials, a representative of the electoral administrators who would be required to implement the proposals, and Ministers. We are grateful, as ever, to all who contributed to our inquiry. We are also grateful to YouGov who undertook a survey about recall on a pro bono basis. 3. This report scrutinises the detail of the Government’s proposals, examines the Government’s rationale for introducing recall, and asks whether its proposals are necessary and likely to achieve their intended benefits. Overview of the Government’s proposals 4. The Government proposes that constituents would be able to sign a petition to recall their MP in one of two situations: a) if the MP were convicted in the UK and received a custodial sentence of 12 months or less (MPs who receive custodial sentences of more than 12 months are already disqualified under the Representation of the People Act 1981); or, b) if the House of Commons resolved that the MP should face recall. 5. Once one of these two conditions had been met, the Speaker would give notice to the relevant returning officer that a petition should be opened. In the case of an MP subject to a custodial sentence, a petition would be initiated only once his or her right to appeal had been exhausted. Constituents would be able to sign the petition for eight weeks, either by post or at a single designated location in the constituency. If at least 10% of eligible voters on the electoral register for the constituency signed the petition, the MP’s seat would 1 Conservative Party manifesto- Invitation to join the Government of Britain, 2010, pp 65-6; Liberal Democrat Party manifesto, 2010, p 89; Labour Party manifesto, 2010, p 9:2. 2 The Coalition: our programme for government, May 2010, p 27 6 Recall of MPs automatically be vacated and a by-election would ensue, in which the recalled MP would be eligible to stand. International comparisons 6. The Government states that it has “drawn on the experiences of other countries” but proposes a new model of recall “which is suitable for our system of representative democracy” and will “work within our unique constitutional framework.”3 It is worthwhile, therefore, briefly to consider the international context, before discussing the detail of the Government’s proposals.