1 Introduction
1. Recall describes a mechanism designed to allow
the removal of elected representatives following a special election
that takes place between scheduled elections. All three of the
main political parties in the UK promised in their manifestos
for the 2010 general election to introduce some form of recall
for Members of Parliament.[1]
The Coalition: our programme for government, published
by the incoming Government in May 2010, included the following
commitment:
We will bring forward early legislation to introduce
a power of recall, allowing voters to force a by-election where
an MP is found to have engaged in serious wrongdoing and having
had a petition calling for a by-election signed by 10% of his
or her constituents.[2]
2. The Government published a White Paper and
draft Bill on Recall of MPs on 13 December 2011. On 15
December, we agreed to undertake the pre-legislative scrutiny
of the Bill and published a call for evidence. Our witnesses
included academic experts, campaign groups, MPs, House of Commons
officials, a representative of the electoral administrators who
would be required to implement the proposals, and Ministers. We
are grateful, as ever, to all who contributed to our inquiry.
We are also grateful to YouGov who undertook a survey about recall
on a pro bono basis.
3. This report scrutinises the detail of the
Government's proposals, examines the Government's rationale for
introducing recall, and asks whether its proposals are necessary
and likely to achieve their intended benefits.
Overview of the Government's proposals
4. The Government proposes that constituents
would be able to sign a petition to recall their MP in one of
two situations:
a) if the MP were convicted in the UK and received
a custodial sentence of 12 months or less (MPs who receive custodial
sentences of more than 12 months are already disqualified under
the Representation of the People Act 1981); or,
b) if the House of Commons resolved that the
MP should face recall.
5. Once one of these two conditions had been
met, the Speaker would give notice to the relevant returning officer
that a petition should be opened. In the case of an MP subject
to a custodial sentence, a petition would be initiated only once
his or her right to appeal had been exhausted. Constituents would
be able to sign the petition for eight weeks, either by post or
at a single designated location in the constituency. If at least
10% of eligible voters on the electoral register for the constituency
signed the petition, the MP's seat would automatically be vacated
and a by-election would ensue, in which the recalled MP would
be eligible to stand.
International comparisons
6. The Government states that it has "drawn
on the experiences of other countries" but proposes a new
model of recall "which is suitable for our system of representative
democracy" and will "work within our unique constitutional
framework."[3] It
is worthwhile, therefore, briefly to consider the international
context, before discussing the detail of the Government's proposals.
7. Recall mechanisms are comparatively unusual
throughout the world, and particularly rare at national level.
The first examples of recall mechanisms were introduced in the
United States during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries,
as part of reforms intended to increase levels of civic participation.[4]
By the beginning of the 21st century a form of recall
was in use at some level of government in around 24 countries
worldwide, including six of the 26 Swiss cantons, the Canadian
Province of British Columbia, Venezuela, the Philippines, South
Korea, Argentina and Taiwan. [5]
8. Recall as a mechanism is now relatively widespread
in the United States, where there are currently recall provisions
for state-level politicians in 19 states, and for individuals
elected at a local level in 29 states. However, although the
mechanisms exist in the United States, recall has seldom been
used successfully and is deployed less frequently than other forms
of direct democracy such as citizen's initiatives or legislative
referendums which were often introduced as alongside it.[6]
At state level, only two attempted recalls of Governors have
been successful: the first in North Dakota in 1921 and the second
in California in 2003 when, in a single election, voters decided
by a majority of 55% to remove the Democratic Governor Gray Davis
and by a majority of 49% to replace him with the actor Arnold
Schwarzenegger.
9. Recall is particularly rare in "Westminster
style" democracies. The International Institute for Democracy
and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA) suggests that "recall
procedure is more coherent with a presidential style of government
(with a directly elected executive official) than with a parliamentary
system of government."[7]
Professor David Judge, of the University of Strathclyde, told
us:
Recalls serve as a powerful accountability mechanism
in a context of: i) often personalised, low-intensity, or non-partisan
elections, ii) low voter turnout, iii) occasionally maverick incumbents,
and iv) the absence, or ineffectiveness, of alternative formal
mechanisms of control, such as monitoring agencies, or informal
accountability mechanisms, such as intra-party discipline. In
these circumstances, inter-election direct accountability through
recall - of representatives performing functionally specific tasks,
for example school board members, sheriffs, soil and water conservation
supervisors, etc - has an immediate logic.[8]
Professor Judge's description of the circumstances
in which recall is most useful does not reflect the typical characteristics
of parliamentary elections in the United Kingdom. General elections
are based on parties, as well as personalities, there are effective
alternative formal and informal mechanisms of control—in
the form of party discipline and the disciplinary mechanisms of
the House of Commons—and MPs do not perform functionally
specific roles.
10. Recall is often identified as a mechanism
of "direct democracy", distinguishing it from other
methods of removing elected officials from office, such as impeachment,
where voters are not involved in the process. However, not all
forms of recall are equally participatory. The International
IDEA states that there are two main models of recall:
a) the partially participatory "mixed recall"
where citizens are involved either in initiating a request that
a recall take place, which is then approved by an authoritative
body (as in Uganda), or in making a decision by voting on a resolution
reached by an authoritative body (as in Austria, Iceland and Taiwan);
and
b) the fully participatory "full recall"
where both the initiative for and approval of a recall require
the involvement of voters (as in Belarus, Ecuador and Venezuela).[9]
11. The precise mechanism of recall varies in
different jurisdictions, but it usually involves at least two
stages. The first stage, which is often a petition, determines
whether a recall election should be held. In some countries and
states, including the United States, this first stage is entirely
in the hands of the electorate: if a specified proportion of the
electorate sign a petition, which can be initiated by any voter,
then a recall election is triggered. The threshold for the number
of signatures required varies. In some places a petition can
be initiated for any reason at all, while in others, particular
circumstances are required. In other countries and states, it
is up to politicians to decide whether a recall election should
take place. Only eight of the 19 US states that permit recall
for state-level politicians require specific grounds for a recall
petition. In the other 11, voters can initiate a recall petition
for any reason.[10]
Recall petitions can also be initiated for any reason in the Canadian
province of British Columbia.[11]
12. If the first stage is "successful"
(a petition reaches a certain threshold of signatures or politicians
decide to initiate recall proceedings), then a second stage, a
recall election, takes place. In some places, the ballot to decide
whether a representative should be recalled is combined with a
vote for their successor (effectively a by-election), while in
others the two votes are separated. There are a number of further
variations on this model, including that used in British Columbia,
where a recall petition is in itself sufficient to remove an elected
representative. Some countries and states place a limit on the
point in an elected official's term at which a recall can be initiated.
13. Seen in an international context, it is clear
that the Government's proposals for recall are relatively tightly
drawn. According to the International IDEA's definition, they
are a form of "mixed recall". Voters themselves would
not be able to initiate a recall petition, and the circumstances
in which a petition would be triggered are limited. This reduces
the risk of vexatious attempts to remove MPs, but leads us to
question whether such a narrow form of recall is worth introducing
at all.
1 Conservative Party manifesto- Invitation to join
the Government of Britain, 2010, pp 65-6; Liberal Democrat Party
manifesto, 2010, p 89; Labour Party manifesto, 2010, p 9:2. Back
2
The Coalition: our programme for government, May 2010,
p 27 Back
3
HM Government, Recall of MPs Draft Bill, December 2011,
p 5 Back
4
Alan Renwick, A Citizen's Guide to Electoral Reform, (London,
2011), p 151 Back
5
House of Commons Library Standard Note, Recall Elections,
Charley Coleman and Oonagh Gay, January 2012, p 4; International
IDEA, Direct Democracy: the International IDEA Handbook,
2008, p 115 Back
6
International IDEA, Direct Democracy: The International IDEA
Handbook, 2008, p 112; Ev 96 Back
7
IDEA, Direct Democracy, p 110 Back
8
Ev 96 Back
9
International IDEA Direct Democracy: The International IDEA
Handbook, 2008, p 114 Back
10
Recall of MPs, p 44 Back
11
Recall of MPs, p 45 Back
|
