MPs Found Guilty Of 'Serious Wrongdoing' Face Recall Elections

House Of Commons

The Huffington Post UK   First Posted: 13/12/11 11:34 GMT Updated: 13/12/11 12:10 GMT

MPs found guilty of "serious wrongdoing" risk being kicked out of office mid-term by voters, under plans unveiled the government today.

Draft proposals published by the Cabinet Office on Tuesday would see a by-election be triggered if 10% of voters in an MPs constituency signed a petition calling for them to be recalled.

A petition to remove an MP would be held if the MP was first censured by a vote in the House of Commons and could not be launched by voters themselves.

Under the plans a by-election would also automatically take place if an MP was convicted of a criminal offence and was sentenced to less than a year in prison.

Mark Harper, the political and constitutional reform minister, said he hoped it would help restore trust in the political system in the wake of the expenses scandal.

"If an MP has been found to have engaged in serious wrongdoing, they should not be able to retain their seat with impunity until the next general election," he said. "Our proposals would allow constituents to decide whether or not an MP should retain their seat”.

Under current rules an MP only loses their seat if they are sentenced to more than 12-months in jail. A rule that caused outrage when it emerged it would have allowed disgraced expenses-cheat Eric Illsley to remain an MP even though he was sent to prison.

Ministers say the new plan to allow a petition to be triggered by a vote of other MPs fulfills a commitment made in all three parties election manifestos.

The power hold recall elections already exists in the United States and led to the downfall of Califorina governor Gray Davis. Voters launched a petition against the Democrat over the state's energy problems. Davis said the ballot was "an insult" to the people who had voted for him in the election.

In practice the legislation in Britain will mean a Commons vote will likely only happen on the advice of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, which is made up of MPs.

The block on the public initiating a petition themselves is born out of fears among MPs that they would be unfairly targeted by political or personal opponents.

Last November the National Union of Students said it wanted to initiate recall petitions against Liberal Democrat MPs who voted in favour of a rise in tuition fees rise even though they had pledged to oppose it during the election.

Joshua Forstenzer, president of Sheffield University Students' Union, said at the time: "If we have the the power of recall, we should have the power to remove MPs on democratic grounds.

"What we are trying to say is that in a democracy, when someone makes a pledge, you expect them to honour and fulfil that pledge."

However responsibility for the coalition's programme of constitutional and political reform is held by Nick Clegg. It seems unlikely he will want to expand the power of recall in such a way.

"Politicians are held accountable at elections for the way in which they have voted or their record in office," the deputy prime minister wrote in the forward to the draft Bill published today. "MPs must not be left vulnerable to attack from those who simply disagree with them or think that they should have voted a different way on a particular measure."

But Tory MP Douglas Carswell said the plans were "all very well" but were not really about "real recall".

"What real recall is about is trusting the people and trusting the judgement of the people to decide whether to recall an MP, this is about trusting a court or Westminster grandees to decide.

He told the Huffington Post UK that the argument that the people with grudges against individual MPs would be able to unseat them with vexatious claims was unfounded. "Proper recall means you can only be recalled if the majority of voters in your constituency say that you should be recalled," he said. Rather than the one in ten threshold following a Commons vote proposed by the government.

Carswell, who introduced his own private members bill on the issue in 2009, said the public took "a dim view" of unfair attempts to unseat a legitimately elected MP and would not vote in favour of recall unless there was a legitimate grievance.

"Ultimately you've got to trust the people. The same arguments were once wheeled out to say you couldn't have elected lawmakers," he added.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST UK POLITICS

MPs found guilty of "serious wrongdoing" risk being kicked out of office mid-term by voters, under plans unveiled the government today. Draft proposals published by the Cabinet Office on Tuesday wo...
MPs found guilty of "serious wrongdoing" risk being kicked out of office mid-term by voters, under plans unveiled the government today. Draft proposals published by the Cabinet Office on Tuesday wo...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 19
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:24 AM on 12/14/2011
The rules already exist to deal with thieving MPs, its called the law and it should be enforced. We have been badly let down by the justice system. The few that have gone on trial were given short terms that did not reflect how serious the crime was. 15 years minimum would be a good guidline :)
09:45 AM on 12/14/2011
For theiving MPs I agree - they should be convicted and lose their seat. But how about those who lose the confidence of their voters in other ways. Switching parties, breaking promises, not taking part in Parliament or refusing to hold surgeries?

The voters should be entitled to put these MPs to the test as well - but this law only let's them if other MPs in Westminster think that is OK. The right of recall should be for electors to exversise, not Party Whips.
04:57 PM on 12/13/2011
I see Peggy the part-time bluecoat has started moderating posts now the real ones have gone home. What a pity they couldn't find one with an active brain cell.
03:58 PM on 12/13/2011
The idea that British voters can't tell the difference between malicious targetting of MPs and genuine loss of confidence of their electors has been proven wrong.

In 1997, Mark Oaten won the Winchester seat by just 2 votes from the sitting MP, Gerry Malone. There were repeated recounts, but he emerged the winner. malone took the whole thing to the courts, and it was judged the election should be re-run. The people of Winchester took such a dim view of Malone trying to interfere in an election that they had settled once that they re-elected Oaten with a majority of 21,556 - in other words vast numbers of people who had not voted for him the first time round, did the second because they thought the challenge unfair.

If MPs are frightened to allow their electorate a say in this way it shows they know they do not really represent them. Thank goodness we have a few - Douglas Carswell and Zac Goldsmith among them - who will keep the fight going to involved voters more in deomcracy.
08:13 AM on 12/14/2011
This is true but gerrys lot stuck at it and got oaten in the end!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Mickey Mouse 1
There are no lies or deceit on a chess board.
12:56 PM on 12/13/2011
MP's who were locked up for fiddling their expenses were let out of jail early. Some MP's who were found to be fiddling their expenses, stood down at the last election in order to collect a golden handshake from the taxapayer. Others stick two fingers up to the public and get peerages. How is this supposed to "restore" public trust? They are self-serving parasites who think it is their "right" to fiddle and take advantage of the taxpayer.
12:51 PM on 12/13/2011
Any MP charged with, never mind convicted of, a criminal offence should be compelled to face the electorate in a by-election.
Now that would be Democratic.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:33 AM on 12/14/2011
Innocent until proven guilty has to apply to MPs as well surely. Imagine the uproar if one of them was found to be innocent of the charges brought. We (the taxpayers) would pay out more in compensations than we'd ever pay in salaries and expenes.
A guilty verdict should definitely lead to losing their parliamentary seat, in whichever House of parliament the guilty party sat.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Roy Fowler
I try....I really do!
12:28 PM on 12/13/2011
Let all MP's sign a contract of employment like the rest of the UK workforce!!

Have them sign for "Expected" minimum number of hours sitting in Parliament; "Required" minimum number of local surgeries and yearly "Goal" marking; where election (local and nartional) promises are measured by local activists and MP's given marks out of 10?

Holding MP's under the same daily requirements most UK workers are under would certainly be a start!!
01:49 PM on 12/14/2011
I'm not sure I agree with this. Some MPs make internatonal aid a key priority, others decide working to bring benefits to their constituency is more important. I'm not sure we can have rules that force them to sit in Parliament instead of doing these things, that many would consider very useful.

However they should be answerable to local people for their actions - and if they fail to keep enough happy then local people should be able to demand they are recalled. If you don't keep your boss happy he will call you in and possibly put you on some sort of probationary discipline regime. Recall is how you do this for errant MPs.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Mickey Mouse 1
There are no lies or deceit on a chess board.
12:03 PM on 12/13/2011
Over 400 MP's out of a total of 650 MP's were found to be fiddling their expenses.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
minimemo
Can I be your friend...if they let me out...
11:56 AM on 12/13/2011
It's a start, now get every 'Lord' out of the House of Lords who has a criminal conviction regardless of what it is for - we cannot have our law makers, law breakers!!
01:08 PM on 12/13/2011
Absolutely right. Pity your definition would still probably exclude the infuriating Baroness Uddin, sitting smugly in her social housing......
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
minimemo
Can I be your friend...if they let me out...
01:33 PM on 12/13/2011
Then we need to 'bend' the rules to ensure it does include her! After all isn't that how they all operate??
11:53 AM on 12/13/2011
Finally. A move in the right direction. The next step should be to allow local constituencies to selct their own candidates, instead of having them foisted onto them by Party Select Committees. Maybe then we would see a return to the days when MPs stood up for the people who elected them instead of slavishly following the party diktat
photo
carneliancrystal
Do I believe all the propaganda of course I do
03:58 PM on 12/13/2011
Would that stop the likes of Harriet Harmans husband being foisted on the local population to sit for Erdington. And elected when the labour party said it would be an all women list for a candidate to be picked from to represent the town?. Nepotism alive and working at its best, do they both claim for second homes I wonder in their respective constituencies? A nice little earner if you can get it.
04:55 PM on 12/13/2011
I think it would. Dromey was selected by Labour's tame union bosses as well as his hateful cow of a wife
05:06 PM on 12/13/2011
Dromey was picked by Labour's tame union bosses as one of their own. Surely Harridan would have voted against him and insisted on a woman/transvestite/fnic ?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:00 PM on 12/13/2011
Agreed absolutely. There was once a day when people voted for a person to represent them in parliament. Nowadays we vote for someone to represent parliament in our communities. It stinks to high heaven.

If your proposal re: candidate selection were adopted too it would be a further step in the right direction toward rebuilding democracy for the people who eventually foot all the bills.