The Recall of MPs Act, brought into being under the Coalition Government, is both too restrictive and too permissive – an unlikely combination.
It’s too restrictive, because constituents have no right to recall their MP. In order to do do, they have to be granted the opportunity by other MPs.
And it’s too lax, because once that opportunity has been granted, a petition signed by a mere one in ten constituents of the MP in question can force a by-election. What about the view of the other nine in ten?
Which is why ConservativeHome has argued in the cases both of Owen Paterson and Boris Johnson against a suspension from the Commons long enough for this flawed Act to apply.
It’s encouraging to see that, whatever view the Privileges Committee comes to in relation to Johnson’s case, its Conservative members recognise the problem.
For all four of them – Andy Carter, Alberto Costa, Bernard Jenkin and Charles Walker – are also members of the Standards Committee.
And all duly voted in their report into the case of Margaret Ferrier, the SNP MP who broke Covid rules during the pandemic, for an amendment related to the Act tabled by Sir Bernard. It read as follows:
In arriving at the decision on sanction, the Committee has had to take account of the effect of the Recall of MPs Act 2015. The recommended sanction, if approved by the House, will trigger the possibility of recall. We believe the operation of the Act requires review.
The amendment was also supported by Yvonne Fovargue, the Labour member of the committee and Alan Dorans, the SNP member of the committee.
One of the lay members of the committee, Paul Thorogood, voted with the MPs. Four others – Tammy Banks, Michael Maguire, Mehmuda Mian and Victoria Smith did not.
So the amendment was carried by eight votes to four and became part of the report. The weaknesses of the 2015 Act seem also to have had a bearing on how MPs voted on the Ferrier case.
For Costa proposed an amendment to suspend her for nine sitting days (and suspend her salary for a further 30 days). That’s a day below the threshold necessary to trigger a recall petition.
Jenkin and Walker voted for it (as did Dorans). Carter and seven other members of the committee (Fovargue and six lay members) voted against it.
Were the Privileges Committee report into the Johnson case to recommend suspension for a period sufficient for the recall petition procedure to kick in…
…and a Conservative member then to table an amendment recommending suspension for a period insufficient for it to kick in…
…And the Tory members to divide in the same way, Johnson’s suspension for ten days or more would be carried by Carter’s swing vote (assuming that the non-Conservative committee members all voted for the longer suspension.
In order to avoid being hauled off to the Tower of London for a breach of privilege, I should add that I’ve no knowledge of what the committee will or won’t recommend in Johnson’s case – or of how it will divide, assuming that it does so.
But end by repeating that it is unfair for constituents in any seat, whatever the circumstances may be, to have a by-election forced on them by as few as one in ten of their number.