The Guardian view on the constitution: people power
|
Version 0 of 1. At the low point of the expenses scandal, the evidence that the worst offenders mostly had large majorities popularised the idea that if MPs were made to be more mindful of their voters they would behave better. From there it was a short step to making the case for the power of recall. In 2010, all three main parties signed up to the idea; it made it into the coalition agreement. There was a draft bill. And then – like so much of the Lib Dem constitutional reform agenda – it ran into the sand. It is a good thing that it has been rescued, despite earlier Tory resistance. All the same, it is but a pallid reminder of Nick Clegg's early ambition, a flawed if useful piece of tinkering. Recall proceedings could only be triggered either by a prison sentence of less than a year (more than that already leads to automatic expulsion) or by the Commons resolving that constituents deserved the chance to get an MP out early, probably after censure by the standards committee. Either way, constituents would then have to get up a petition backed by 10% of the electorate (probably around 8,000 people). This is a high hurdle that only applies in restricted circumstances. Grumbles about a stitch-up can already be heard. MPs could split on party lines, putting those on the majority side beyond reach, and wider clubbiness among colleagues could protect members on all sides. In the case of Maria Miller, whose behaviour over her housing expenses was criticised in April by the standards commissioner, MPs on the standards committee pulled their punches. She ended up being condemned more in the eyes of the public than by her peers. She had to go from government. And yet, having resigned as a minister, Ms Miller has retained the confidence of her constituents. The purist model, where it is all down to the voters, as Tory Zac Goldsmith would like, risks importing the US experience, where some state legislatures allowing recall have found big money mobilising opinion against, say, moderate Republicans to make way for Tea Party candidates. Security of tenure between elections is a part of the independence of MPs. It protects them against vendettas over local issues like, say, a hospital closure, or passing media outcries. If it seems that too much power remains with MPs, there should – as in local councils – be more lay members on the standards committee to bring in an outside perspective. In an ideal world, the place to get rid of an unsatisfactory MP is at a general election. And the real problem is not that there is no power of recall, it is the voting system. The way first past the post privileges incumbents leaves most voters feeling their vote has not counted. But another attempt at real reform is far distant. The power of recall is a small but important way for MPs to show voters they get it. |