Conclusions and recommendations
1. We recognise the difficulty of defining what constitutes a political crime or a crime of conscience. However, we recommend that, for the purposes of the first trigger of a custodial sentence of 12 months or less, the Government change its decision not to take account of the motivation of the MP in committing the offence. One possibility would be to enable the House itself to decide whether there should be an exemption from a recall petition in a particular instance because of the political nature of the crime. (Paragraph
18)
2. We welcome the inclusion of lay members on the new Standards Committee and consider that this change strengthens it, and arguably further legitimises it, as an arbiter of MPs' conduct.
(Paragraph 26)
3. It is not easy objectively to judge the conduct of one's colleagues, but, overall, we consider that the Committee on Standards and Privileges has done so successfully. We are confident that it would continue to be able to do so were one of the sanctions that it could recommend a recall petition.
This is particularly the case given that in future lay members will be included on the Committee.
(Paragraph 27)
4. We understand why the Government does not want to define "serious wrongdoing". However, it is not clear from the draft Bill and White Paper whether the Government intends serious wrongdoing to be restricted specifically to breaches of the code of conduct for MPs and its associated rules, as the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards suggested to us. (Paragraph
36)
5. Restricting wrongdoing to breaches of the code of conduct for MPs and its associated rules would certainly not cover everything that the public might consider to be conduct meriting recall. However, it would provide a rational and comprehensible basis for making a judgement about conduct. Members of the public who felt that their MP had behaved improperly, but who found that such behaviour did not fall within the scope of the code of conduct, would have the opportunity to express their views at the next general election. Recall should not be a substitute for elections. (Paragraph
37)
6. We consider that wrongdoing in the context of recall constitutes a breach of the code of conduct for MPs, while "serious" implies a breach of sufficient gravity that the Committee on Standards and Privileges would currently consider it merited more than a period of suspension.
(Paragraph 38)
7. Even a small increase in the number of designated locations would be likely to increase participation. The Government should replace the requirement for a single designated location for signing the petition with a requirement for at least two and no more than four designated locations. The locations should be selected with regard to making signing the petition in person as convenient as possible for everyone in the constituency. Provision must be made to ensure that duplicate signatures are discounted. (Paragraph
42)
8. The Government should include in the final Bill a specific duty on returning officers to ensure, as far as is reasonable and practicable, the designated locations for signing the petition are accessible to constituents who are disabled. (Paragraph
43)
9. We believe that constituents who have an existing postal vote should be sent a postal signature sheet automatically if there is a recall petition. The risk of being seen to solicit signatures, or of constituents feeling compelled to sign, should be minimised by clear accompanying instructions and information about the purpose of the petition. (Paragraph
46)
10. A petition is a public document and, given that the Government itself admits that it would be possible to observe people signing it or taking steps to sign it, it may be more likely to inspire public confidence in the long run if the Government were to acknowledge that it is not possible to protect the privacy of people who sign the petition and to be open about its public nature. (Paragraph
50)
11. The Government's proposal to restrict the methods of signing the petition in Northern Ireland to postal signing is not a proportionate response to concerns about intimidation. Everyone who is eligible to sign will be able to do so by post if they wish, so nobody in Northern Ireland would have to sign the petition in person unless they actively chose to do so. We recommend that constituents in Northern Ireland should be able to sign the petition in person if that is what they wish to do. (Paragraph
53)
12. The requirement for eligible constituents to sign the petition in order to show they support it seems to us reasonable. However, the Government must ensure that suitable alternative arrangements are made for disabled people who are unable to sign the petition. (Paragraph
55)
13. The clarity of the wording of the petition, and of the accompanying information about the process, should be tested by the Electoral Commission before it is agreed.
(Paragraph 56)
14. We are uncomfortable with sweeping powers to amend primary legislation by means of secondary legislation in a Bill of a constitutional nature and we recommend that the Government remove these powers from the final Bill. (Paragraph
57)
15. We recommend that the Government reconsider whether returning officers are the best people to be responsible for the regulation of petition expenditure and donations, or whether the Electoral Commission might be better placed to undertake this role. (Paragraph
60)
16. If the Government takes the steps we have recommended to make signing the petition easier—having several designated locations and those who have an extant postal vote automatically being sent a postal signature sheet—it should raise the threshold from 10% to at least 20%. We believe this would represent a significant level of dissatisfaction with the sitting MP.
(Paragraph 63)
17. The Government has not made the case for introducing recall. We have not seen enough evidence to support the suggestion that it will increase public confidence in politics, and fear that the restricted form of recall proposed could even reduce confidence by creating expectations that are not fulfilled. The aftermath of the expenses scandal has shown that MPs can be, and are, removed by current processes as quickly as they would be by recall. (Paragraph
76)
18. There is not a single, clear job description for an MP and everyone will have their own idea about what behaviour constitutes being a "good MP". To an extent, individual MPs must decide for themselves what their job entails. If their constituents disagree, they have an opportunity to vote for someone else at the next general election. Differences of opinion about what constitutes the proper role of an MP should not be allowed to trigger recall petitions. (Paragraph
83)
19. We believe that a system of full recall may deter MPs from taking decisions that are unpopular locally or unpopular in the short-term, but which are in the long-term national interest. It may also discourage them from taking on powerful interests, or expressing controversial or unusual opinions. The Government argues that a recall mechanism should not leave MPs vulnerable to attack from those who simply disagree with them. We agree. For these reasons, we cannot support a system of full recall. (Paragraph
84)
20. We do not believe that there is a gap in the House's disciplinary procedures which needs to be filled by the introduction of recall. The House already has the power to expel Members who are guilty of serious wrongdoing. This should be regarded as an active option; rather than a theoretical possibility. We note that expulsion would not prevent the person concerned standing in the resulting by-election. We recommend that the Government abandon its plans to introduce a power of recall and use the parliamentary time this would free up to better effect. (Paragraph
89)
| 
