Recall of MPs: where should we draw the line on sacking MPs?

The House of Commons is this week scrutinising the Recall of MPs bill, which would allow constituents to remove MPs from office in between general elections.

The argument for recall was accepted by all of the main political parties following the expenses scandal, with David Cameron and Nick Clegg pledging to introduce the legislation in their 2010 Coalition agreement.

The concept has received widespread support from the public – but MPs are struggling to agree where the line for recall should be drawn. If it is too easy to recall an MP, the system might find itself open to abuse, but if it is too difficult then it offers no meaningful check on elected officials.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

The bill passed its second reading last week, but critics say it gives little power to the public and will hardly ever be used.

Why have recall at all?

The idea of recall emerged during the expenses scandal as a way to empower voters to sling out misbehaving MPs between elections. A recent YouGov survey showed that 68 per cent of people support a new law to allow MPs to be recalled. Only 13 per cent were against the idea, with the rest not sure.

What is the government proposing?

The bill, as it stands, would allow constituents to hold a petition to remove their MP, but only under limited conditions. If an MP is given a custodial sentence of up to 12 months or suspended by the House of Commons for "serious wrongdoing", constituents would have eight weeks to sign a petition to recall them. (A custodial sentence of more than 12 months would automatically disqualify an MP from parliament.) If at least ten per cent of eligible electors sign up, a by-election would be triggered.

Who is against the bill?

Some critics of the bill say it does not go far enough. The Commons Standards Committee, the body responsible for suspending members of parliament, is itself mostly made up of MPs, giving rise to concerns that the bill leaves too much power in the hands of parliamentarians.

Leading the criticism is Zac Goldsmith, the Tory MP for Richmond Park and North Kingston, who says the bill is a "shabby pretence at reform" with criteria so narrow it will hardly ever be used. He has put forward a rival proposal, which he says would give more power to the public. Constituents could recall their MP for any reason they want, but would have to complete a three-stage process. Five per cent of a constituency would have to sign a "notice of intent for recall" petition. Then 20 per cent would have to sign a recall petition in person. Finally, a referendum would be called and 50 per cent of voters would have to support the recall for a by-election to be triggered. However, Goldsmith's proposal was rejected in the Commons yesterday by 340 to 166.

Who's in favour of the current bill?

The bill is being championed by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg. But he has suggested that it might need strengthening, for example by a standards committee with fewer MPs sitting on it. Despite that, he does not go as far as Goldsmith. Unrestricted recall could lead to an MP being ousted on the basis of their views on controversial issues such as gay marriage, abortion or fox hunting, he says. "It's not the people's recall. It's the rich man's recall if you look at the detail," he says. "It basically would give a field day to very well-funded vested interests."

Frank Dobson, Labour MP for Holborn and St Pancras, also thinks Goldsmith's proposal would "leave principled MPs vulnerable". He points to his predecessor Lena Jeger, who campaigned for the 1967 Abortion Act, as an example. Writing in The Guardian, Dobson suggests that in a predominantly Roman Catholic constituency, Jeger might have faced recall for sticking her neck on the line for her principles.

However, Dobson does not appear to be in favour of Clegg's proposal either. He acknowledges that waiting for a general election to get rid of an MP "may seem rather slow" but he says we should bear in mind the old saying "revenge is a dish best served cold".