Recall of MPs Bill

David Winnick Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Geraint Davies]

I have in my hand “Profiles in Courage”, a book written by John F. Kennedy 50 years ago when he was in hospital with a back injury inflicted during the war. It is about eight Senators in American history whose common characteristic was that they stood up for principle against the popular view and often against their own party. They often suffered the electoral consequence of that, which eventually resulted in the termination of their political careers.

I want to focus on the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), because it strikes me that the essence of what they propose is in fact in direct contradiction with the aim of encouraging noble behaviour such as that of past politicians—not only in America, but here—who stood up for what they believed was right, not what was popular.

During this simple debate, many of us—possibly all of us—will have been inundated with e-mails from 360 Degrees. [Hon. Members: “38 Degrees.”] 38 Degrees—that’s the one. I remember it well. 360 Degrees is the evolutionary future—the mutation—of 38 Degrees. If the hon. Gentleman’s amendments are agreed to, we could look forward to powerful groups with vested interests—be they people who are on the political margins or those with financial interests—focusing their fire through mass mailings in order to conjure up an apparent demand for the recall of a particular Member over something that had nothing to do with their misconduct, but everything to do with a political position that might not be popular.

Like other Members, I fear that politics today—and this is the view of the public—is too much driven by focus groups or politicians seeking to please particular people, rather than giving some leadership and seeing the fruits of their fortune mature over time. As I mentioned earlier, I stood against a particular planning decision on beach motorbiking, which seemed popular at the time. After debate and consideration, the council came round to the view that there would be environmental damage to the beaches and an impact on Swansea’s image as a quality tourist destination, and residents came round to the view that it would spark weekend motorbike joyriding and so on. Over time, the view of the public in fact changed, but had there been a recall system at that time, had there been financial support from those who wanted to make money out of that venture—there could be thousands of such examples—it not only might have ended the career of the MP, but more likely have been background noise that caused intimidation.

If companies with financial interests in planning, or a group of such financial organisations, persevere on a particular issue over several years and choose to target different people at different times, they can corrupt or distort the way in which certain Members behave through intimidation behind the scenes or directly. That is a very dangerous direction in which to be going.

Alongside that is the issue of particular political groups or parties. To return to the example of Guantanamo Bay, some people in my then constituency took the view that my standing up for a constituent there—for their rights to a fair trial, a fair hearing and fair treatment—was completely irrelevant, because my constituent was obviously guilty before having been tried and I should not be talking about him. If somebody had wanted to make a big issue about that, I might have been in a more difficult position. As I mentioned earlier, I like to think that I would have continued to stand up for principles rather than popularity, but we are all in Parliament in a democratic situation. The point I am trying to make is that, in the round, if we allow the amendments of the hon. Member for Richmond Park to go through, it would be an intrinsic corruption of our democracy.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Before Chris Mullin became a Member of Parliament, he campaigned with great courage for the release of the Birmingham Six, for which he was denounced by so many newspapers and all the rest of it. Knowing him, he would have done exactly the same if he had been a Member of Parliament, but can my hon. Friend imagine what would have happened to him with a recall and how difficult it would have been for him to campaign so courageously, even though he had a pretty safe seat when he did become a Member?

[Geraint Davies]

The point about Chris Mullin is well made. Different people with different temperaments in different situations, with different constituencies with different profiles and majorities, will face different stresses and strains—not just actual and in your face, but behind the scenes. As I have said, that might have a very corrosive influence on democracy itself, and we should stand fully against it.

All of us like to think that despite pressure behind the scenes or otherwise, one would put principle before popularity. With fixed-term Parliaments, we know that we will have five years of making difficult decisions, but have the time to explain such things. However, we might be faced with instant demands or pressures, which—let us face it—might be orchestrated by political parties against those in particularly marginal seats. There would be issue after issue, and requests to do this and to do that. People from 38 Degrees, or whatever it is called, are just the tip of the iceberg. Lots of other groups would insist on the immediate satisfaction of their demands. It is easy to get groups of people to send in letters without their thinking through the issues. It would all become a sort of crowd mentality, and before we knew it, people who should be MPs would be intimidated and not stand, and it would also interfere with the quality of people who came forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nadine Dorries]

My constituents know exactly what type of MP I am. There has been an elephant sat inside—not outside—the Chamber tonight, and it is the reason why the Government have introduced the Bill. They have not introduced it because the public have infinite trust in us, or because they think MPs are wonderful people that work hard for their constituents. The Bill has been introduced because the people do not trust politicians any more. They have no faith in us. They need to know that they can have more democratic control over what we do here because they do not like a lot of what they see going on.

I know that most MPs come here to work hard and look after their constituents, but the Whips Office holds the keys to power and ministerial ambition so there is a difference between the consideration that some MPs give to their constituents and what they give to their own political ambition and their climb up the greasy pole. The difference is as vast as that between sound and silence. Many MPs are one person in their constituencies and a different person entirely at Westminster. People are sick of the Whip system, the parliamentary system and the party-political system. They do not want to see that any more because they want people to represent them. They want their opinions represented here. They do not want grimy deals done such as, “Don’t defect to UKIP and I’ll make you a Minister” or “Don’t vote for this Bill because the Liberal Democrats don’t want you to.” They know about those deals and they are disgusted. That is why we have the Bill.

The amendments could have been a little grittier, but it is vital that we vote for them. It has been argued tonight that Members could be removed for their position on a particular policy, but if they are good MPs that is nonsense. It has been argued that an MP could be removed because of a political row, but I am sure that all the 766 people who signed that petition were supporters of the Opposition. During the 2009 expenses crisis, one thing we knew was that everybody nationally hated MPs, but on a constituency basis many people said, “No, we don’t like MPs, but our MP is okay.” That is because they know what we do for them and the type of person we are. When MPs do fall down, it is because they ignore their constituents, do the grubby deals and put their own personal ambition above the interests of their constituency. A former Minister complained about the Bill today. I asked whether he would vote for it if he was still a Minister, and he said, “Of course I would.” That is the root of the problem—collective responsibility and putting party first.

We need this Bill. I do not believe that we will have the benefit of the British public’s trust unless the Bill goes further and we vote through the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park. Any MP arguing that thousands of people, just because they are political opponents, would walk down to the town hall and put their names on a register to get them out because the local newspaper has a campaign against them, is talking absolute nonsense. Nobody has anything to fear. If you are a good MP, if you put your constituency first, if you are part of the people in your constituency, and if you take no notice of your Whips Office but do what you should do in principle and do what is right for the people who elected you, then you have nothing to fear from either the amendments or the Bill.

[Mr Winnick]

I shall be brief. Let me make it quite clear that I certainly have respect for the electorate. Having been elected nine times, and crossing my fingers that there will be a 10th time, I have every reason to respect the electorate, but my respect would be the same if the electorate’s decision had been different.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacNeil]

On the fear of recurrent recalls, does the hon. Gentleman agree that an amendment should be tabled requiring that a person pay a deposit to call a recall referendum, as is the case for elections to Parliament, in order to inhibit constant recall mechanisms and time wasting? The deposit might be redeemable only on a successful recall.

[Mr Winnick]

It might or it might not.

In future reform campaigns, we will need the courage of MPs to do as I have indicated and not to feel inhibited by the greater pressure put on them by the recall mechanism. If an MP in a highly marginal constituency—my first, and only, majority in Croydon was 81—was elected with a majority of, say, 100 or 150, perhaps winning it for their party for the first time, would they, being keen to get re-elected, think that the time to take up a controversial issue? They might wonder what purpose it would serve, given their slender majority. Of course, it is easier for Members with larger majorities to pursue such campaigns, but those with tiny majorities would feel greatly inhibited from doing what they might otherwise consider necessary.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I accept the point about tiny majorities, of course, but the question is whether we adopt the proposal from my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), the proposal for a 50% threshold to get rid of an MP or the Government’s proposal for 15% or 20%—or is it 5%? Whichever way, it is a relatively small number. That is the problem.

[Mr Winnick]

Yes, it might be. As I said at the start, there is bound to be a recall mechanism that the House will approve by a majority—that is inevitable—but I stress what the Labour spokesman and others have said about the importance of distinguishing between conduct and policy. I was in the last Parliament and I have no doubt that we did ourselves a great deal of damage. It is said that the House of Commons has never been popular. It was said last week that in October 1834, when the building went up in flames, people actually cheered, and I have even heard it said—although I find it difficult to believe, because I am not aware of any great scandal or any allegations of MPs taking unfair rations—that the House of Commons was not particularly popular during the war. We should not have any illusions. Nevertheless, damaging and justified accusations were made against many Members and, even though a large majority of MPs were found not guilty of fiddling their expenses, collectively the accusations did us a great deal of damage, and had that damage not been done, it is unlikely we would be discussing this matter now. I have no illusions about that.

I do not question for one moment the sincerity of the hon. Member for Richmond Park. I know that he has a genuine view, which he has expressed—indeed, I think he expressed it before he came to the House of Commons—but I have to say, for the reasons I have stated, that I have some disagreement, to say the least with what he is proposing. I would rather have a different mechanism.

The only other point I would make is about the danger of tit for tat. I will not mention a certain Member, but I can imagine that in this Parliament there would have been a great deal of pressure from one side to start the recall mechanism. If that had happened, the other side would inevitably have acted in the same way. It is always the same in the House of Commons: if one side starts a process that is damaging to the other side, the other side responds accordingly. We could have this tit-for-tat business—it might not happen, but it is a possibility—where MPs put great pressure on their leaders by saying, “Why don’t we start the recall process? The other side did it over X; why don’t we do it over Y?” I wonder whether that would do much good for the reputation of the House of Commons.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

It seems to me that one of the big issues with trust in politicians concerns money. Does my hon. Friend agree that we really should look at Members’ second jobs, which has a lot to do with the erosion of trust?

[Mr Winnick]

I am sure my hon. Friend is right. At the end of it, I hope we will all reach a consensus of a kind—well, at least a majority.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned tit for tat, but does not game theory suggest that if someone knew that starting a recall effort would be reacted to by the other side—if, indeed, the motive was political—that would prevent the process from starting in the first place? The potential for tit for tat eliminates that possibility, which brings us back to dealing with genuine scenarios.

[Mr Winnick]

It might do, and that scenario might not arise in the first place. I am just saying that there is a possibility that if that did happen, it could damage the reputation of the House of Commons. All these are matters that I hope will be taken into consideration.

I hope that we will reach a majority—I said “consensus” earlier; “majority” is a better word—so that we can say we will have a mechanism, but one that will work. It should also be one—this is the purpose of my intervention in the debate—that does not hinder Members of Parliament in raising issues, however controversial or unpopular, that they believe to be right.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I rise to speak to amendment 41, standing in my name, which would add the words:

“No action shall be initiated against an MP in relation to a recall petition process on the basis, or as a result of votes cast, speeches made or any text submitted for tabling by such an MP, within, or as a part of, a parliamentary proceeding.”

It is quite obvious what I am trying to get at, and I am afraid I disagree with my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) and for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith). I believe that parliamentary privilege and our freedom to say anything in this House, knowing that we will be held to account only in a general election, is a very powerful defence of liberty against tyranny. It is a matter of the utmost importance, and I think that the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park is extraordinarily dangerous.

I know that the very phrase “parliamentary privilege” sounds a bit old fashioned and pompous, but it is terribly important in our history. As the Library put it,

“The ancient origins of parliamentary privilege, and the archaic language that is sometimes used in describing it, should not disguise its continuing relevance and value. As we have noted…the work of Parliament is central to our democracy, and its proceedings must be immune from interference by the executive, the courts or anyone else who may wish to impede or influence those proceedings in pursuit of their own ends.”

For centuries, we have maintained from the Bill of Rights the absolute freedom of extraordinarily difficult, unpopular, unfashionable people to say difficult, unfashionable, unpopular things in this House, knowing that nobody outside in any court—this is where I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), who wants to set up some electoral process or court, or whatever it is called—can hold them to account. Every Member has known for centuries that they have the freedom to express very unpopular opinions, knowing that they can be held to account only at a subsequent general election.