Oral Answers to Questions

Douglas Carswell Excerpts

Wednesday 16th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Compared with 2010-11, last year there were 400,000 extra operations in our NHS. Across our NHS, there are 5,000 more doctors and 5,000 fewer administrators. We have got the level of mixed-sex wards right down. The level of hospital-acquired infections—[Interruption.] The point that I am making, which I know the Opposition do not want to hear, is that the NHS is improving under this Government because we are putting the money in and they would take the money out.

[Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)]

Q10. Many of us were inspired by the Prime Minister’s speech on political reform delivered in Milton Keynes when we were in opposition. He promised to make politicians more outwardly and properly accountable to the people. To make that happen, we were promised a system of open primary selection, which has already had such a refreshing effect in the constituencies of Totnes and Gosport. When does the Prime Minister expect a system of full-blown open primaries to be in place more widely, as promised in the coalition agreement?

[The Prime Minister]

I do support the use of open primaries. As my hon. Friend says, in the Conservative party we had a number of open primaries. I hope all parties can look at the issue and debate how we can encourage maximum participation, including in the selection of candidates.

Charitable Registration

Douglas Carswell Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2012 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) is very well regarded on both sides of the House and by me, and she deserves every one of the compliments that have been showered on her this afternoon. I congratulate her on securing a debate that has mobilised, at my last count, more than 40 Members of Parliament from both sides of the House. That is to be noted by the Government, but also by the Charity Commission.

It is important to unpack the debate, because there are three issues that are linked but need to be discussed separately. The first question is whether the Charity Commission has made a good or bad decision in relation to the Plymouth Brethren. The second is: what are the implications of that decision? That is the “Who’s next? What’s next?” question—the concern about a ripple effect across other religious groups. The third question is whether what we have set up to protect the integrity of the charity system in this country, to protect taxpayers and donors, is fit for purpose in terms of defining public benefit. It seems to me that those are the three issues, and I would like to try to deal with them in the time that I have left.

I have to say up front that I will be forced to pick up a slightly different hymn sheet from the one used by the rest of the hon. Members who spoke this afternoon. It is a little less rousing, but parts of this tune need to be heard. My first point is about the Charity Commission. “Rotten”, “discriminating”, “a bureaucratic bully crushing the little guy”, “a hidden agenda”, “unjust”, “inconsistent”, “arbitrary”, “a wolf in sheep’s clothing”—this has been quite a rough day for the members of the Charity Commission. It could be worse—they could be working in the BBC—but that is very tough language and it communicates the strength of feeling in the House on this issue.

However, I have to make an important point about the status of the Charity Commission. We have to remind ourselves that it is a non-ministerial Department. It is not subject to ministerial direction or control. It is an independent registrar and regulator. Its independence is set out in statute, and Ministers and the Government have no power to intervene in Charity Commission decisions.

[Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)]

The Charity Commission seems to be imposing a state dogma of uber-inclusivity on a religious group that has decided to be moderately exclusive. Does my hon. Friend the Minister think that that is very big society and, as the big society Minister, is he not prepared to do something about it? That is why we have elections, is it not?

[Mr Hurd]

That was a characteristically well made point, but actually the view that I have, as a Minister, on this individual decision is not relevant, for the reasons that I have just given. I am here to stand up for the commission’s freedom to take the decision, because that is the process that we have set up.

The second point is that, in exercising its functions, the Charity Commission is answerable to the courts. As many other hon. Members said, the Charity Commission’s decision not to register the Preston Down Trust has been appealed to the first-tier tribunal. As that decision is subject to an appeal, there is a limit to what the Charity Commission can say at the moment, and I hope that hon. Members will understand that there is a limit to what I can say in response to the debate, because I do not want, as a Minister, to be accused of trying to influence a tribunal.

Civil Service Reform

Douglas Carswell Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister’s talk of sharpening accountability and of better accountability upwards to departmental boards. He even talks of giving Secretaries of State more of a say on appointments. Why has he not considered enhancing accountability to the Select Committees of the House? Surely without that change, the mandarin is not truly outwardly accountable to the public.

[Mr Maude]

I completely understand my hon. Friend’s point. He will know that the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, who is away on Committee business at the moment, strongly takes that view. The Government have not opined on that suggestion at this stage, because the House of Lords Constitution Committee is conducting an inquiry into exactly that issue and we do not want to pre-empt its deliberations. My hon. Friend’s point, however, is a powerful one.

Oral Answers to Questions

Douglas Carswell Excerpts

Wednesday 13th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

The particular issues are well outside my responsibilities, but I will cheerfully look at the question that the hon. Lady raises.

[Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)]

11. What steps he is taking to reduce fraud in Government procurement.

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)]

We are committed to tackling fraud and error in all areas of Government business, including public procurement. We believe that we can save the taxpayer billions of pounds a year by doing that across Government. Every central Government body will carry out a spend recovery audit by the end of next year, which should generate savings of between £50 million and £100 million. The Home Office and the Department for Transport have already recovered significant amounts by doing this.

[Mr Carswell]

In welcoming the greater efficiencies and economies of scale that come from centralised procurement, does my right hon. Friend recognise the danger that centralised procurement can, in effect, throw up barriers to entry for smaller suppliers? Might this not help to explain why small and medium-sized enterprises are not always getting their fair share?

[Mr Maude]

As I said earlier, SMEs are increasing their share of Government business. It has doubled since the election and is set to continue further. I point my hon. Friend to what happened with the Government’s aggregated travel contract when we brought it together: one of the two contracts for travel across the whole of Government was won by a small business, which is rapidly becoming a bigger one.

G20

Douglas Carswell Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

First, we have not yet given any IMF money. There was no agreement on how much should be given, exactly when it should be given or in what way. The world was saying that it stood ready to support the IMF. The IMF has supported countries like Yemen in the past and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have put development aid into Yemen. The biggest challenge in Yemen is the lack of effective governance, and I think that what Bill Gates was talking about—proper systems for raising taxes and for transparency in Government revenues and in revenues from extractive industries and minerals—are the keys to helping such countries along their way.

[Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)]

Back in July the Financial Secretary to the Treasury told a Committee of this House, with regard to IMF obligations:

“We have an agreement to fund up to £20 billion, broadly speaking.”—[Official Report, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 5 July 2011; c. 9.]

Pretty broad, it turns out. We now hear that the figure is closer to £40 billion. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital to level with the British people, with no weasel words or sophistry, and that Ministers have an obligation to be absolutely straight about what they plan to do with other people’s money?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me be absolutely clear about this. There are two sorts of money that the UK provides to the IMF: money through our quota, which is effectively through our shareholding, and money through loans and other arrangements. There have been three votes in this House in the last three years on all the elements of the IMF money. As I have said, if it comes to giving extra support for the IMF, we want to do that within the headroom that has been set.

European Council

Douglas Carswell Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman makes the good point that disorder in the eurozone will have knock-on consequences for other countries—he mentioned Cyprus—as well as for the country that is directly affected. Obviously, we are looking at all potential eventualities and all possible problems, and doing contingency planning for them. That is what we would expect the Treasury to do, and that is exactly what the Treasury—and the Bank of England and others—are doing. On getting the Cyprus peace process started, Alexander Downer, the special representative, worked extremely hard, but we have a lot more hard work to do to convince both sides that there needs to be a deal, and a deal soon.

[Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)]

I am delighted that the Government seem to be listening to this House and seeking to minimise eurozone debt liabilities. It is very encouraging that Ministers are no longer in thrall to the Europhile Whitehall mandarins who negotiated us into this mess. Will the Prime Minister assure us that he will not use the European financial stabilisation mechanism for any further eurozone bail-outs—and not just those for Greece—between now and 2013?

[The Prime Minister]

The first part of my hon. Friend’s question was a slight dig at the mandarins, but it is important to blame Ministers rather than officials for decisions that one does not like. I would place the blame squarely on those who sit on the Opposition Front Bench rather than on officials. I cannot really give him satisfaction on the second part of his question, because the EFSM is in place, it is subject to qualified majority voting and it will not go until 2013. Although I cannot give him that satisfaction, we have done the best we can by getting us out of that situation from 2013, when the treaty changes. In the meantime, we have kept ourselves out of the Greek situation.

Libya/European Council

Douglas Carswell Excerpts

Monday 28th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

First, in terms of diplomatic avenues, it is welcome that there is now British diplomatic representation talking with the opposition in Benghazi—I think that is hugely welcome. In terms of when the job will be done, I think the answer is when the UN Security Council resolution has been secured. Let me take the right hon. Gentleman back to what the President of the United States said:

“Qaddafi must stop his troops from advancing on Benghazi, pull them back from Ajdabiya, Misrata and Zawiya, and establish water, electricity and gas supplies to all areas. Humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach the people of Libya. Let me be clear, these terms are not negotiable”.

Of course, Gaddafi has been driven back from Benghazi and out of Ajdabiya, but he is still terrorising and killing people in Misrata and terrorising other towns, he has not allowed humanitarian access and he is in flagrant breach of the Security Council resolution. I think now is the time to press ahead—helping those civilians, making sure those lives are saved and giving the Libyan people the chance of a different future.

[Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has suggested that we are liable for the bail-out mechanism entirely thanks to the former Chancellor. In that case, will he be happy for the current Chancellor to respond to my freedom of information request and publish the advice that he received on this matter on assuming office to demonstrate that we are not liable for the bail-out billions because of any failure to grasp the small print in those first few halcyon days in office?

[The Prime Minister]

I can go into even more detail if my hon. Friend wants: article 122 was turned into qualified majority voting via the Nice treaty. My right hon. and learned Friend, Michael Howard, who is now in another place, said, as a Back Bencher, “You are making a terrible mistake here: this could be used for future bail-outs,” and the then Europe Minister, the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain), said in reply:

“The use of QMV…does not undermine the no-bail-out rule set out in article 103.”—[Official Report, 4 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 359.]

What is worrying is that the Nice treaty made the situation worse and the previous Government were warned about it but they did not pay any attention.

Oral Answers to Questions

Douglas Carswell Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation that all lobbying is to benefit the advantaged. Members are lobbied all the time by charitable organisations, charities and, as I found in my previous role in opposition, those who campaign on behalf of disabled people, for example. It is important, however, that such lobbying is transparent and that people know who is talking to Members of Parliament and members of the Government. That is exactly what our statutory register will achieve.

[Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)]

I applaud the Minister’s efforts, but will he consider proposals to shut the revolving door between big Departments and big business contractors, which leaves taxpayers ripped off and democracy diminished?

[Mr Harper]

Processes are already in place to vet what Ministers and former Ministers do after they leave both ministerial office and this House. My hon. Friend makes a good point, and those matters are being looked into and kept under review. I am sure that he will continue pressing that point in his usual vigorous way.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Douglas Carswell Excerpts

Tuesday 12th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but in fact there are plenty of opinion polls, conducted by the Electoral Commission and others, that show that there is a majority for electoral reform in this country. We are not saying that that necessarily means STV; we are saying that we should let the people decide. It is not right that politicians in this House should basically stitch up the question and then try to present people with a Hobson’s choice between two things, neither of which, as we know, people prefer.

[Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)]

Given that it is not every day of the week—indeed, it is not every year—that we send out millions of ballot papers to millions of homes asking people to decide whether they want to change the electoral system, does my hon. Friend not agree that the least that we can do is allow them a proper choice, from the full spectrum, regardless of our personal preferences? Rather than confronting them with the politicians’ choice, we should allow them a full range of options.

[Caroline Lucas]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. In a way, it is pretty arrogant for Members to assume that the population do not have a view and cannot make a sensible choice. Are we really saying that first past the post is such a strong and popular system that it justifies such a narrow question? Recent history suggests that it is not. It is no accident that following the collapse of the Soviet Union, not one of the eastern or central European countries emerging from years of totalitarian rule chose the Westminster model. Similarly, is AV really the only system that we should consider if we want to change?

I acknowledge that the alternative vote system has a number of advantages over first past the post and that, in some respects, it represents a small step forward. The Electoral Reform Society has conducted a thorough analysis of AV, and I share its assessment that there are some positives. Those positives include the ability of voters to record a sincere first preference, thus reducing the need for tactical voting; the widening of the political choice available to the elector; and the disincentives that the system offers for parties to pursue core vote strategies that ignore the wishes of the majority of the electorate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

I find that incredibly disappointing and defeatist—[Interruption.] Well, it might be said that, had the terms of the coalition agreement been different, and had different priorities been at the top of the list, we might not have found ourselves in this situation. I believe that the role of politicians in this House is to do what we believe to be right, and I believe that it is right to give people this choice. That is what will be respected by the electorate.

[Mr Carswell]

Does my hon. Friend not agree that there is something rather bizarre about the position of the Liberal Democrats? They have been arguing for STV for as long as anyone can remember, but, in order to cook up a coalition, they have abandoned their reformist credentials and are now happy to settle for something that is not even their preferred option.

[Caroline Lucas]

I agree, and I very much hope that Liberal Democrat Members will follow us through the Lobby to support this amendment. Even if we do not win the vote tonight, this could become a self-fulfilling prophesy. If some Members are not willing to put their bodies where their mouths are, and are not prepared to fulfil the promises in their manifesto, we cannot be surprised that people lose faith in the political process. This amendment is about restoring faith in the political process; it is about trusting the electorate and delivering on promises to treat them a bit better.

My primary concern as we consider the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill is that it is the public who should choose our voting system, not the politicians. That ought to be a principle around which we can all agree. We can argue about whether to adopt AV-plus, first past the post, the single transferable vote or the additional Member system, but the principle should be that it is for the people to decide.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

Unfortunately, I think that the hon. Member is right that this was a shabby political deal done in the very smoke-filled rooms that the coalition complain about.

Our political system is sick, I argue, and getting this question right provides the only road to real recovery. The system is sick because swing voters in just a tiny number of seats effectively decide who is going to run this country. It has resulted in the targeting of funding at marginal constituencies and voters in most other parts of the country being sidelined, if not ignored.

[Mr Carswell]

My hon. Friend is being incredibly generous in giving way. Does she agree that if the amendment were accepted and people could vote for a single transferable vote system with multi-member constituencies, they would effectively be returning to the Disraelian idea of three-Member boroughs, which is a profoundly Conservative idea?

[Caroline Lucas]

Well, I thank the hon. Member, but I perhaps agree with that slightly less than with some of his other more constructive interventions.

Let me return to my final point, which is about more than what kind of voting system we select, as it is about reconnecting with the public. It is not long ago that we went through the expenses scandal and gained the sense that people were very disillusioned with this House and wanted MPs to clean up politics—whatever their preference of voting system. That is why I hope colleagues will support this amendment to depoliticise the question and give voters the option to express their real views on what electoral system we should have.

Parliament came to seen with contempt by many, because it was seen to be acting in its own interests and not those of the people whom it was supposed to serve. If this amendment is rejected, people will reach the same conclusion once again—that Parliament is acting in its own interests rather than trusting the public to make a decision. A stitched-up referendum that denies people a real choice smacks of the old politics. Tonight we have an opportunity to create a healthy system, based on respect for the electorate and the creation of a real debate on a real question. I urge hon. Members to support amendment 7.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Laing]

The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) made a sincere speech in support of her amendment 7, but it was wrong because she argued about giving more power to the people. Her amendment has nothing whatever to do with standards in the House of Commons. It would cause confusion and lead to the loss of the two most important factors that any electoral system ought to depend on—clarity and certainty. They are present in first past the post, but they certainly are not in amendment 7.

[Mr Carswell]

I helped draft the design of the ballot paper under this amendment. Can the hon. Lady explain which bits of it she thinks her constituents would be unable to understand?

[Mrs Laing]

I did not say that my constituents would not be able to understand. My constituents are very intelligent, and I am sure that they would be able to understand. I will not go into a long explanation at this point in the evening. I am merely saying, and I stick to it, that if amendment 7 were to become part of the Bill, the referendum would bring about a system—any of the systems in amendment 7—that would lack clarity and certainty. Any voting system ought to have clarity and certainty.

Clarity is what amendment 230 is all about. I am pleased to say that the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, of which I am a member, looked at the report of the Electoral Commission. The commission consulted extensively on the wording of the question, as the Minister has told us this evening. The Select Committee supported the suggestions of the Electoral Commission. The wording in amendment 230 is much clearer. It brings about clarity and certainty when a question is put to the electorate, as it should be. Therefore, members of the Select Committee tabled this amendment. We were delighted to discover that the Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister also supported the amendment, and I hope that the Committee will support it this evening.

Direct Democracy Initiatives

Douglas Carswell Excerpts

Wednesday 8th September 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) on securing this debate. It is fundamentally important that we consider ways to revive our moribund democracy. I would go so far as to say that, if one good thing came out of the previous, rotten Parliament, it was a recognition that there is something profoundly wrong with our democratic system and that we need change.

It is not surprising that our democratic system is not working, given that seven out of 10 constituencies are safe seats—one-party fiefdoms—which makes Members of Parliament inwardly accountable and inwardly responsive to party Whips, rather than outwardly responsive to the people. Direct democracy can help us change that in two or three key ways and I am pleased that the Government are toying with some ideas. However, with respect, I fear that Sir Humphrey Appleby and the powers that be in Whitehall fear the full implications of direct democracy and are already trying to water down some of the radical intentions of the coalition agenda.

Open primaries are the most significant way that we can make democracy outwardly accountable and responsive. Instead of leaving it to the party machines and hierarchies in London to decide who gets to be a Member of this legislature, we can have open primaries to throw open the question, particularly in safe seats. If Senator John McCain, a well-known national figure in the United States who has stood for the office of President, is forced to contest the nomination to be the Republican candidate in his home state, Tory, Labour and Liberal MPs in safe seats should be subject to the same process.

We must ensure that open primaries are not open caucuses. They must be full elections involving the entire constituency, rather than just matters of sectional, self-selecting self-interest. We must overcome the problem of the cost. In this country we have had three open primaries: in Totnes and Gosport, and for the Mayor of London. The cost was prohibitive in other constituencies. We must, without resorting to state subsidy, taxpayer-funded politics or, heaven forbid, giving the party chairman the power to decide where open primaries should be held, find a way of allowing people to have a say about who gets to be the candidate in their constituency. A simple way to do that is to piggyback primaries on to pre-existing local ballots and allow people to petition their returning officers to trigger the process.

I hope that the Government listen and get this right, because if they get it wrong it will mean strengthening the power of the big corporate party hierarchies in London, rather than opening up democracy to local people.

The Government need to get two other things right. People should be allowed a direct say in law-making. Rather than contracting out the process to a professional caste of politicians and a priesthood of party managers, we should allow people a direct say. I am delighted that the Government are toying with the idea of a great repeal Bill—a freedom Bill—written by the people. However, I fear that they are not running this project as a wiki Bill, like the wiki Bill on Wikiversity, which is run completely as a crowd-sourced, open-source project. Instead, they are running it as a Government-owned online consultation. The difference is that, if something is genuinely crowd-sourced and the people are allowed a say, it tends to be pretty optimistic and liberal and is not dominated by demands to legalise cannabis, for example. There tends to be a much more angry and illiberal exchange in respect of a project on a Government-owned website. I hope that the Government amend the online architecture of their freedom Bill proposal, replace it with what is available free on the Wikiversity site and try to introduce the latter to the House.

The Government talked about a right of popular initiative, meaning that, instead of leaving it to the Sir Humphrey Applebys and a few Ministers to decide the legislative agenda of the Commons, we should give the people a say. There was a wonderful proposal for a threshold mechanism, under which, if a proposal got a certain number of signatures it would be introduced or at least given time and MPs would be forced to debate and vote on it. I ask the architects of this proposal in Whitehall, again, to be cautious about allowing thresholds for this popular initiative. A far better way of ensuring that the outcome is liberal and inclusive—sunshine politics, rather than reactionary, angry and sectional politics—is to ensure that different proposals have to compete for Floor time in the House of Commons, rather than having to pass a certain threshold. If we allow the threshold mechanism to be used, we would be asking for proposals that, as a liberal, I would feel uncomfortable supporting.

I hope the Government listen to these concerns and ensure that, through the mechanisms they introduce, direct democracy means more liberalism, rather than reactionary illiberalism.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)]

I am grateful for your chairmanship of this debate, Mrs Brooke. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) for calling the debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) for chipping in with his thoughts on direct democracy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park correctly set out some of the problems that we face, including public engagement with Parliament. Some issues with the previous Parliament that my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton highlighted are well known, which is why political and constitutional reform is one of this Government’s central features. We need to ensure that people are properly engaged with Parliament and politics—those are not always the same thing—and that we do a much better job than the previous Government did.

Let me respond to the two things that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park mentioned: recall and local referendums. I will come to the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton later. The prominence given to recall by all three major political parties at the general election reflected its importance. There was consensus among all those parties, particularly off the back of the expenses scandal, that we needed to do something to deal with that issue.

Under the Government’s proposal, which my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park does not think goes far enough, the recall mechanism would be set in motion only if there were, effectively, a trigger—if an MP were engaged in serious wrongdoing. At that point, if 10% of constituents signed a petition, a by-election would be triggered in which the individual would be able to stand and defend their record. Effectively, that would put the decision in the hands of the people.

We decided to do that to deal with specific issues in the previous Parliament, because members of the public were rightly saying, in respect of matters raised with an MP early in the Parliament, “We’ve got an MP who’s been judged to have fallen below the standards we expected, but they can continue sitting in Parliament, taking their salary for the rest of the Parliament and there’s nothing we can do about it.”

My hon. Friend thinks that we should go further. We balanced that right because we do not want this mechanism used as a political tool by political opponents, with Members of Parliament consistently being faced with a recall challenge based on nothing more than the fact that people disagree with them.

[Mr Carswell]

I respect the Minister’s statement that it is important that we should not have a system that allows vexatious attempts against good, legitimately elected MPs, but will he consider the example of Winchester in 1997, when a vexatious attempt was made by the Tories to trigger a judicially sanctioned recall election because they felt that they had lost, unfairly, by two votes? They went on to lose that election by more than 20,000 votes. Surely, we should trust the people, who have pretty good judgment to decide what is and is not a legitimate complaint against a Member of Parliament.

[Mr Harper]

I remember that well, as I suspect my hon. Friend does. I went tramping round the streets of Winchester in that rather thankless by-election.

In his article in the press, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park mentioned the Californian recall system, through which every governor since Ronald Reagan in 1968 has faced a recall petition. Clearly, most of those petitions were not successful. The state of California is of a significant size, compared with the United Kingdom, and it takes a fair amount of organisation and initiative to even get a recall petition sorted out.

Given the size of a parliamentary constituency and that most hon. Members face significant blocks of Opposition voters, recall could easily turn into a tool used by our political opponents. I will explain in a moment why I think that that would be particularly bad, and I will try to do so in a way that my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton will find appealing.

[Mr Harper]

That is right. I hinted at that in my remarks. Let me mention one reason why recall would not be a good idea. My hon. Friend the Member for Clacton wants legislators and those in positions of power to be fearless and to put forward bold ideas—to be able to come up with challenging ideas, demonstrate them and argue for them in public. I think that I have characterised some of his views correctly. Under the recall system that we are talking about, legislators could be subject to recall by their constituents at any moment. If that fact were held over MPs, it would drive away any opportunity to set out bold or challenging ideas that took a while to deliver.

If someone had an idea involving a tough and difficult period with a payback taking some time to come to fruition, and if there were a recall petition hanging over them that could be triggered for political reasons, I suspect that they would be off. People who wanted to bring forward bold and radical ideas would be deterred, and the proposal would have the opposite effect.

[Mr Carswell]

I do not wish to labour the point, but under our proposal, recall would be a two-stage process. The people, rather than a committee of grandees in this place, would decide in a vote whether there should be a recall, and there would then be a by-election. I would rather face the judgment of the good people of my constituency than a committee of grandees in Whitehall.

[Mr Harper]

I understand why my hon. Friend might think that, but Members of Parliament might feel constant pressure. There is always a challenge in politics when putting forward bold ideas and having time to allow them to come to fruition before facing people’s judgment.

Those of us in the business of putting forward such ideas, whether in Government or outside, must make a judgment, and the Government’s view is that it would not be sensible if a recall could be triggered at any time without there having been serious wrongdoing. We have set out what we want to do, and triggering a recall on serious wrongdoing was a policy proposed in the manifestos of all three major parties at the last election. My hon. Friends the Members for Richmond Park and for Clacton still have some way to go to persuade the Government to change position.

I turn to local government. Reference was made to whether recall should apply to other elected officials. Clearly, we want high standards of behaviour from local councillors, as well as from Members of Parliament. We have announced that we will replace the existing standards regime, which is centralist and leads to vexatious complaints. We are working closely with colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government and local colleagues to decide what sort of regime will replace that. My hon. Friends had a meeting with the Minister with responsibility for decentralisation earlier this week, and I know that he will welcome any ideas about what that regime should look like.