Recall of MPs Bill

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Twigg]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I will refer shortly to some of the proposals that he has made. I am not in a position to make announcements about the Opposition’s whipping arrangements or the Government’s, but they will be made available in due course.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

While we are correcting the record, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), who is no longer in his place, said earlier that Garry Allingham was thrown out of the House for passing on notes. In fact, he was suspended from the House because he had alleged that other MPs had been bribed by journalists with drinks to give them tittle-tattle. The only person who had been thus involved was the said Member, Garry Allingham. Interestingly, the one person who felt that he could not vote to suspend a man for drinking too much with a journalist was Winston Churchill.

[Stephen Twigg]

I thank my hon. Friend for putting that on the record.

The example of the “cash for questions” scandal in the 1990s exemplifies the weakness in the Bill. If we accept the principle of recall, then surely such clear examples of misconduct should fall within the criteria that I set out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It is a delight to follow the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith). I just want to pick up on one point. He said that votes for women were inevitable. I disagree. I of course passionately support women having the vote and it seems inevitable to us today, but it took a first world war and millions of people slaughtered across the continent for the political class in this country to change its mind on women’s votes. Nearly every political reform that has happened in this country that has been worth having has had to be fought for and has never been inevitable.

The first Reform Bill, when it came through the Commons in 1830, was carried by a single vote. Mrs Thatcher only became Prime Minister because of a single vote in the no confidence vote in 1979. Habeas corpus, when it was put on the statute book in 1679, was carried by two votes in the House of Lords because a very fat peer was counted as 10 votes—it should never have passed. If one believes in parliamentary reform, one has to campaign for it and to fight for it. Nothing is ever inevitable. I know the hon. Gentleman has been fighting and that is why I do not think he should undermine his cause.

[Mark Field]

There was a general election in May 1979. It may have escaped the hon. Gentleman’s attention, but that was not in this place; it was outside among 60 million Britons.

[Chris Bryant]

If it had not been for the vote of no confidence and the nationalists joining with the Conservatives in March 1979, there would not have been that early general election.

If I am really honest, there is part of me that does not want to have anything at all to do with recall, because part of me thinks we should have confidence in the parliamentary process and just have shorter Parliaments. Five years for a fixed-term Parliament is far too long: it should be four years. However, we have got to where we are because our parliamentary system is broken. It is bust in important ways that matter to the public. We are held in utter contempt as a class, if not as individuals. I recognise what the hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) said. All of us know that the vast majority of politicians—more than the vast majority; virtually every single politician I know—have honourable intentions and ambitions only for what is best for their country and want to change the world according to their lights for good. The truth, however, is that that is not what our voters think. Our voters have come to a completely different conclusion. Maybe that is because, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park said, we have sometimes made ludicrous promises that we knew, even when we made them, we were not going to be able to deliver. The classic example is tuition fees. I could say that to the Liberal Democrats, but they could equally say that to Labour Members when we first introduced tuition fees.

It may be that familiarity in the past century has bred contempt. One hundred years ago, people did not know what their Member of Parliament looked like. Many MPs never lived in their constituency and hardly ever visited. When Edmund Burke was MP for Bristol he visited it twice—no wonder they did not vote for him. He also made some profoundly arrogant remarks on the role of a politician and a Member of Parliament. We think that this is all terribly unfair, but the end result is that voter turnout is falling, and falling in different kinds of elections. Turnout is at its worst for police and crime commissioner elections. I think it was always inevitable that they would have a particularly low turnout. Incidentally, should there not be recall for them?

After the second world war, in 1950, the turnout in the general election was 83.9%. At the last general election turnout was 65%, even when we leave out the millions who have not even bothered to register. In one seat, Manchester Central, the turnout was just 44.3%. If that is not the electorate voting on whether our system is bust, what is?

[Conor Burns]

The hon. Gentleman mentions Edmund Burke. In Burke’s famous address to his electors in Bristol he said that Members of Parliament should sacrifice their interests in favour of their constituents, but he also said that Members of Parliament owe their constituents their judgment and that if they betray their judgment to their constituents’ opinion they are betraying, not serving, them. Take the recent example of same-sex marriage. My concern is that I was lobbied vigorously by constituents to oppose it and I voted for it. What protection would there be in the recall mechanism for a Member of Parliament who takes a conscious decision to vote against public opinion?

[Chris Bryant]

I will come on to whether there should be a recall in a situation in which MPs disagree with their constituents. It is often said of my constituents—I do not know whether it is true, but it is often said by the commentariat—that they would all vote in favour of hanging. I am passionately opposed to hanging. If there were recalls solely on that matter, however, I think the voters would none the less choose to re-elect me because I was prepared to say what I believe and stand for. I think voters are actually far wiser in that respect than even Burke would suggest. He also said:

“To be a good Member of Parliament is, let me tell you, no easy task.”

I think we would all agree with that.

We have to bear in mind that not a single one of us in this House receives the votes of more than 50% of the total electorate, including those who choose not to vote—not a single one of us. There was only one British seat in the 2001 election where a Member got more than 40% of the total electorate, including those who did not vote. In that seat, both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats lost their deposit. The constituency was the Rhondda. Even in the Rhondda, the figure is only a smidgeon above 40%. We must have a degree of humility in how we approach our electorate. Sometimes I think it feels to our voters that we are not full of humility.

[Richard Drax]

I am listening to the hon. Gentleman’s arguments and his use of statistics. I would just like to pick up on one point. The number of people voting in elections has dropped not, I believe, because of the misconduct of individual MPs, but because the identities of the three main parties have merged. What I am getting on the doorstep is that they are fed up with politicians not standing up for what they believe in. That does not have anything to do with misconduct. They are two entirely separate matters.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman must have hacked into my computer, because he has basically said what I am about to say in my next couple of paragraphs. That is not an allegation of misconduct, by the way. [Laughter.] I do not think the Standards and Privileges Committee needs to address it.

Edmund Burke has been mentioned a lot. When he campaigned against corruption in Parliament, he complained that there were too many people in the pocket of the Crown. He came to the conclusion that there were 140 Members of the Commons who, because they had a pension, a well-paid salary post in government or had been given some kind of perk or sinecure, were in the pocket of the Crown, and he complained about those 140 MPs. Today, we have 95 paid Government Ministers, 43 Conservative Parliamentary Private Secretaries, five Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Private Secretaries and seven Conservative members of the No. 10 policy board, to say nothing of those on the Government Benches or on the Opposition Benches who want to have those jobs.

My complaint is that there are now more than 150 MPs in the direct employ of the Government who have no choice in how they are going to vote. If we take all the others into account, more than half the Members in this House have their voting determined entirely for them by two people: the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. Ironically, France has just 35 Ministers, none of whom are in their Parliament. Germany has just 17 Cabinet Ministers and two under-Ministers in each Department—50 in total. The UK therefore has more Government Ministers than France and Germany put together. In essence this House, which should be the cockpit of political debate expressed without any fear or favour, where the nation’s grievances are aired and solutions found in what should be a free and fair legislature, is frankly today nothing more than a gene pool for Government. Our primary role is no longer to scrutinise the Government or hold them to account; the majority of Members think that our primary role is to staff or sustain the Government. In the end, that is a problem. It is why we have all the planted questions and obsequious speeches and why votes we pass—on Magnitsky or Palestine—with massive majorities are completely and utterly ignored by the Government. It is why we still have a completely and utterly unreformed House of Lords where patronage remains vital.

It would be all right if the edifice of our present government system was built on a strong foundation of mass-membership parties, but it is not. If we put all the political parties’ members together into one great big rowing lump, we would not get to 500,000 people. It is sometimes compared with the membership of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds or the National Trust. The numbers are feeble, yet that is what it all depends on. There are constituency associations on both sides of the House that have fewer than 200 or even 100 members. I do not like the term “safe seats”; there are seats that have been reliably electing the same kind of MP for decades and where the new MP will be selected by perhaps 50, 60, 70 or 100 people. People introduced the Reform Act in the 1830s complaining about constituencies where only 100 people could elect the MP, and it is no different today, which is why constituency parties are finding it difficult to get more candidates to present themselves, even in safe seats. On both sides of the House, constituency parties are selecting safe-seat candidates from a short list of two or even one.

Therefore, I would of course argue that the parliamentary system is bust. In 1951, 1955 and 1959, the two main political parties, Labour and the Conservatives, received more than 90% of the vote, but now they get barely 65%, and in the European elections this year they got 49.3%. Yet we have a “winner takes all” parliamentary system in which the winner gets to appoint as many peers as they want and decide the whole Government and all business; only the Government get to table motions laying a charge on the taxpayer or to advance legislation as a priority at the beginning of the day, and so on.

For a long time, we had a system that allowed a chink of democracy: we had ministerial by-elections. For centuries, if someone was appointed a Minister, they had to face a by-election in their constituency, because they had to go back to their voters and say, “Is it all right for me to join the Government?” I would argue that that is a perfectly legitimate system, but of course people did not like it. In 1908, when he lost his ministerial by-election, Winston Churchill, who had a terrible habit of losing elections, said:

“It is an awful hindrance to anyone in my position to be always forced to fight for his life and always having to make his opinions on national politics to conform to local exigencies”.

Some of our objections to recall are basically that self-same arrogant attitude towards the electorate. It is an awful hindrance, isn’t it, to let the voters get in our way?

The key issue in the Bill is the threshold. In essence, it places the initial decision in the hands of MPs or the courts. The danger is that the courts would decide not to imprison an MP because it would of necessity start the recall process, so MPs would not be treated the same as others before the law. Furthermore, if we put the decision in the hands of a Committee of MPs, regardless of how many members of the public—it does not matter whether they are genuine or non-genuine members of the public—also sit on it, it just will not wash with the public.

There was an extraordinary moment in 1911 when Asquith was Prime Minister. There had been a big battle between the House of Commons and the House of Lords over the “people’s Budget”, which introduced national insurance and the rest of it. Asquith was at the Dispatch Box and blind drunk. He was the Prime Minister; it was the most important piece of legislation in his life; and he was blind drunk, and we only know about it because Winston Churchill and Lloyd George both wrote home to their wives to tell them that he was blind drunk and had to be carried out of the debate—you cannot tell from Hansard. Churchill made the interesting point that it was only thanks to the freemasonry of the House of Commons that the public would never know about it. That is the danger. The public think we are engaged in a freemasonic activity by protecting one another. They think we protected one another in the expenses scandal and that we look after one another even across the party divide, and that is why I do not think the initial threshold—of allowing the decision to be made by Members—will be good enough.

[Lady Hermon]

I must take the hon. Gentleman back a few minutes in his speech. I am sure I am not alone in feeling deeply offended at his reference to the judiciary. The judiciary, of whose independence I am enormously proud, would not be swayed by the fact that someone is an MP—quite the opposite; they might be swayed to be more severe. I am sure he would like to put on the record his confidence in the independence of the judiciary.

[Chris Bryant]

I am very fond of the hon. Lady, but I think she has deliberately misunderstood what I was saying. Judges regularly say in their summing up that they are taking into consideration the fact that because the person is a Member of Parliament they would lose their job as well if they were to be given a custodial sentence of more than a year. It is a matter of fact that these matters are taken into consideration.

There is another problem with the Bill. Having set a very high threshold—that the courts or MPs get to decide whether somebody is subject to the recall process—it then sets the very low threshold of 10% for throwing someone out. As I said, no Member has achieved election to this House by 50% of the total electorate, so the idea that it would be difficult to find 10% to force them out of their seat, notwithstanding the remarks of the hon. Gentleman, is to live in cloud cuckoo land.

If those two thresholds are wrong, what is the right one? Should we just leave it to the public, which in essence is what we heard from the hon. Member for Richmond Park? As many Members have said, there is a danger that the extremely wealthy could pervert the process; they could spend lots of money in individual constituencies—or perhaps 10, 20 or 30 at a time—and subvert the proper democratic process. Arguably, big money is already doing that in the British system. We need to look again at how people spend money and at the rules governing not just general elections, but by-elections, because the last thing I want is an American-style democracy where only the rich can ever get elected.

Of course there is a danger of timid MPs, but there is that danger today, and the honest truth is: I would trust the public. I say this for a simple reason. In 2003, I got into a bit of trouble with the electorate, The Mail on Sunday and a whole load of journalists after the paper revealed that I had been using a gay dating website called Gaydar, and there were pictures and so on. The story was not quite as it was presented in some of the newspapers, but be that as it may—

[Mr David Davis]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I will once I have finished my point.

One Mail journalist told me they were taking bets in the office on when I would commit suicide. The campaign was malevolent, but it still would have been perfectly legitimate for some of my constituents to say, “Let’s start recall.” People could legitimately have asked about my conduct. However, I also have absolute confidence in the electorate and the people of the Rhondda, and in the people of this country for that matter. They might have got 500, 1,000 or 1,500 to sign the recall, but The Mail on Sunday did its own opinion poll and found that the vast majority of the people in this country did not think I had done anything wrong or that I should resign. Having gone through that hell in November 2003, I say that it is perfectly legitimate, and the wise thing for us to do, to leave it to the public, as long as we make sure that the threshold is decent enough that it is not just about people being vexatious and as long as big money cannot determine the outcome. In the end—

[Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

This is my last sentence, and I am sure that people have heard quite enough from me—

[Mr David Davis]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I am sorry, I did promise to give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Davis]

At the risk of repeating the hon. Gentleman’s point, I remember that we discussed that issue at the time. Surely the outcome of his whole argument is that the public are wiser than we give them credit for. They were wiser about his private life, they are wiser about the influence of big money and they are wiser about our politics. There are many Labour members in my constituency who vote against me religiously but would never vote for a recall, because they think that I am doing my job. Is that not what we end up depending on?

[Chris Bryant]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The proof of that is that after those events, in the 2005 election, I increased my majority. I can only assume that that proves that it pays to advertise.

My argument is simple, really. Yes, let us have recall; it is an important next stage in the democratic process. We have to open up that little sliver of democracy in the political process, because the leviathan is groaning. We need to change, but we need to ensure that we sort out the financial thing, that this cannot be done vexatiously and that we have a high enough threshold.

[Mr Charles Walker]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I am not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I have finished.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I welcome the fact that the Government have introduced the Bill and I congratulate them. It has been a long time coming, but it is welcome that we shall at last have a Bill on the statute book that brings about recall in some shape or form.

We need to recognise that the cornerstone of the democratic process is that power resides with the people—the electorate—but it is far too easy to ignore how disillusioned they are. We have heard Members say that this will pass, but it will not do so without more positive action, and a recall Bill modelled on the proposals made by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) will go some way towards providing that.

The challenge, of course, is how we achieve the balance between the very real demands of the electorate and the need to protect Members from vexatious attempts to undermine and remove them. We must not underestimate how disillusioned the public are with politicians and the whole political process.

Earlier in the debate, concerns were raised about Members who support unfashionable causes. Change is painfully slow in this country; we can all sympathise with that, as we all have our pet schemes and find it incredibly frustrating that we cannot put them into action. Despite those frustrations, we must recognise that one of the great strengths of our country is stability—change certainly does not come quickly.

If we are to restore public confidence, the first thing we must do is genuinely recognise the level of public distrust of and cynicism about we politicians. We must do more than pay lip service to dealing with it; we need to show by our actions that we will do something about it. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) drew attention to some uncomfortable home truths, talking about safe seats and how the low level of party membership can result in the selection process in such seats being limited to 100 people or fewer who, in effect, elect the Member of Parliament. That could of course be simply resolved by thousands of people queuing up to join the political parties that are most in tune with their views, but we have all had very limited success in increasing our party membership and it will not happen in the near future.

The message should go out that democracy is a two-way process. Those of us who put ourselves forward for election are not the norm. Most of us try very hard to engage with those we represent, and it is because so many are so disenchanted with the whole process that they simply refuse to become involved. I recognise that the opportunity to give a sitting Member a kicking might tempt some to join in, but although the thresholds being proposed might be sufficient, I would probably err on the side of slightly upping the thresholds proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park to offer additional protection.

I mentioned unfashionable causes, and mention has been made of abortion, capital punishment and the like. Of course, unpopular policy decisions are taken: the closure of a local hospital, for example, is always going to be contentious, but what if I or any other Member thought that the proposals were in the best interests of those we represent? Should we be on the side of the health trust, which has vast resources and an army of lawyers and accountants to look after it, or should we be there to articulate the genuine concerns of those we represent, by engaging meaningfully and trying to put forward a balanced view?

[Chris Bryant]

Members have campaigned on issues such as abortion or ending the criminalisation of homosexuality, but is it not an irony that those causes were advanced in previous eras in private Members’ Bills? They were given time by the whole House, and I think the public valued that private Members’ process, when no party Whip was exercised, which is completely different from today.

[Martin Vickers]

I cannot disagree; private Members’ Bills have indeed played a very important role over the years.

On the subject of articulating the concerns of the local community, I recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh)—I served as his constituency agent for many years—always used to speak of his role as being “a megaphone” for the local community. We should take that seriously; it applies to many issues.

My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park highlighted Members’ failures: failure to engage with constituents, long absences from Westminster and switching parties without by-elections, to which I might mischievously add, voting in support of handing the sovereignty of this place to a foreign institution. Having an in-House solution, as is being proposed, is no longer acceptable to the public. Whatever the outcome of the Bill’s legislative journey, a recall Bill will reach the statute book, which is progress.

Let me explain the difference between the recall process and waiting for the next general election in order to get rid of a Member. As a previous speaker mentioned, general elections tend to focus on whom we want to govern the country, while the recall process and subsequent by-election would be much more focused on the individual and his failings or, indeed, his strengths.

I shall support most of the amendments proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park. Whatever the outcome, we shall at least be able to go back to our constituencies and rightly proclaim that we have made some progress on recall, even though more progress is needed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Stuart]

Ultimately, however, it would not be the press barons but our electorates who decided. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that our electorates are easily moulded by the tabloid press, I point out that the public would decide, not the press barons. That goes back to the earlier point that this is about trusting the public to exercise their judgment and come to the right conclusion.

[Chris Bryant]

Is not the truth that the people we are talking about—Leo Abse, Sydney Silverman, David Steel and, for that matter, people from previous generations, such as Plimsoll—all enhanced their reputation with the public even though they advanced unpopular causes? It would be exactly the same today.

[Mr Stuart]

I tend to agree. There is an idea that powerful outside forces will pick on a Member of Parliament, but as many Members have commented, whatever the public disgust with MPs in general—rightly or wrongly—people tend to have a much higher opinion of the MP in their own area. If such an MP was under threat for doing his or her job and for bravely standing up for what he or she thinks is right, I would trust local people to send out the strong message that they will have no truck with such efforts to destabilise and remove the MP. There would be risks, as there always are, but at least the decision would rest with the public in the constituency, who would ultimately decide the MP’s fate.

We are where we are, and there is a crisis at least of public trust, although not of Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) made a powerful speech on the importance of speaking up for Parliament and about the fact that Parliament works, whatever problems people may have with parties or individual MPs. None the less, I think that we need to trust the public to do the right thing. If we do that, they will feel that we have given them a say in judging whether or not we have done wrong.