I will vote for the Recall of MPs Bill tonight after listening to todays debate, but not the proposed Goldsmith amendments next week

Today the Commons has been debating the Recall Bill and we will vote on the second reading of the Bill tonight at 7. The Bill then has various committee days in the Commons next week before it goes to the House of Lords for their Lordships to consider the matter over the winter. I tried to speak today but was not able to. So I will try and set out some points here on the blog.

I stood on a manifesto to bring in a Recall Bill in 2010 following the expenses scandal when several MPs were rightly sent to prison. The Coalition Agreement included a commitment to bring forward legislation to introduce a power of recall, and there has been a draft bill and white paper considered and then assessed by a cross party committee under pre legislative scrutiny. The Government identified recall as a means of restoring faith in the political process, by increasing the accountability of Members of Parliament to the electorate between elections. However, it believed that a recall petition should only be triggered following a finding of serious wrongdoing; it should not be triggered for political reasons – perhaps because MPs had voted in a particular way that constituents opposed. The evolution of the Coalition Government's Draft Recall Bill is well set out here: https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/reforming-the-constitution-and-political-system/supporting-pages/recall-of-mps

The actual draft Bill is here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2014-2015/0094/cbill_2014-20150094_en_1.htm
I have also received a campaign email doing the rounds from 38 Degrees to say that the planned recall proposals do not go far enough; as 38 Degrees often do, they have decided to draft their own Bill. As always, in these matters, the devil is in the detail, and having researched the 38 Degrees Bill and listened to the debate today I am going to support the Coalition Governments Recall Bill tonight and will not be supporting the 38 Degrees version. As always, I will try and explain why.
 
The first issue to sort out is what is recall for? In my view it should be a facility to be used if an MP has behaved badly in ways which damage their work as an MP. I don't think it should be a chance to re-run the election in any given seat, simply because a group of people did not like the result.  

The Bill addresses bad behaviour at clause 2 and looks at criminal offences in particular. Where I disagree most strongly with the 38 Degrees approach is that it encourages recall where an MP makes a decision on a political issue, a matter of conscience, or a local issue with which some constituents do not agree. Many of the examples have been cited in the debate today, whether it is the Iraq War vote in 2003, the same sex marriage vote in 2012, the hunting ban, or issues concerning divorce, abortion or death penalty decisions.  I voted for the same sex marriage bill and then led the campaign against the Coalitions proposed Forestry Bill. Both were highly contentious issues.  

More difficult still is political behaviour. Some constituents think an MP should face recall for breaking his or her word, or reneging on promises made before an election. Tempting though this is, it could prove difficult to enforce and would probably lead to parties and candidates declining to make any promises at all that could later force their resignation. This would be the import of the 38 Degrees / Goldsmith Bill.

Let us take the case of the Lib Dem promise to oppose tuition fees in the 2010 election. It was a clear promise. In the circumstances of the coalition it was subsequently a Lib Dem Secretary of State who then presided over the development and implementation of the tuition fee system. Should there have been 50+ by elections immediately that happened, with a possible change of government and a period of instability? Or is the change of circumstance, a realisation that some promises were unaffordable, given the financial disaster left behind by Labour and Gordon Brown, and the formation of coalition, sufficient reason to change a party’s stance? I, for one, would not support recall in such circumstances, but am certain some would have tried to make it a recall matter under the 38 Degrees / Goldsmith arrangements. The reality is that the Liberals, never having been in government for a century, made a rash promise thinking it would never have to then implement it. None of us also realised how broke the country was going to be after Brown's Boom and Bust. As we have discovered the reality of running a balanced budget is very difficult and very tough decisions have had to be taken. I do not shirk from this, albeit it has been very difficult and not every decision has been got right. But the reckoning in such a case is the General Election, not 57 by elections. 

The issue also arises of what proportion is required to justify recall? The Goldsmith / 38 Degrees proposal seeks only 5% of the electorate as a trigger. I would campaign strongly against such a figure - not least as in a marginal seat there will be at least 40% of the electors who feel very partisan in favour of the main losing candidate. Should they have the right to demand a re-run at the worst time for the incumbent MP? One of the parts of this job I admire most is the fact that we represent everyone, without fear or favour. I have had strong proponents of the BNP - some of whose behaviour was fairly feisty, to say the least, at the last election - come to me seeking my help as their MP: they are treated the same as any Coalition supporter. MPs help all of their constituents, whoever they are. This needs to be maintained.

38 Degrees no longer reply to my emails, or respond to my letters, even though I have gone to great lengths to engage with them, but I will happily set out their amendments to the Coalitions bill here: https://s3.amazonaws.com/38degrees.3cdn.net/5f6fde153d0e49a936_enm6bnzus.pdf
It may be that the Goldsmith / 38 Degrees approach will be carried next week but again this is what a parliamentary debate is about. The Bill will be assessed on several occasions by both Houses of Parliament. That is what parliamentary debate is for.

For the final word do not take my word for it - read the Guardian. The Guardian is not normally na supporter of the Coalition, but is a fairly robust critic of the 38 Degrees / Goldsmith approach: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/05/mp-recall-bill-not-meaningless

In his brilliant article Michael White, who cites the Andrew Mitchell MP example very powerfully, makes the wonderful point about the attempt to remove Winston Churchill as an MP in 1938:

"Unfashionable MPs and unpopular causes need to be defended from popular passions of the moment and from majoritarian bullying, orchestrated from tax havens. My favourite example remains Winston Churchill, who faced a campaign to remove him in his Epping constituency in 1938 because he was upsetting Neville Chamberlain's efforts to make lasting peace with Mr Hitler."
As always, on the blog, comments are welcome. But, as usual, I will make the usual point that we in the Commons debate the Bill line by line twice, as does the House of Lords, and that the Bill always evolves with the parliamentary process. Given the Churchill example, and the reasons set out above, I shall be voting for the Coalitions version of the Bill tonight, but not the future amendments.

Same Sex Marriage became law last week

The House of Lords have finished debating and the Queen has given royal assent. I strongly believe that the concerns that were legitimately expressed against this bill in draft have been addressed and the law is such that those who do not wish their church to be affected by this change will not be - eg the Church of England or the Catholic Church or the Muslim faith
At the same time those churches that wish to conduct such marriages - whether they be Quakers, Unitarian, or Jewish should now be able to move forward on that. I liked the phrase of Rabbi Julia Neuberger, who said before the Commons debate:
“It is precisely because marriage is such a uniquely important institution that we should ensure that all couples who want to get married can do so, regardless of their sexuality.”

Addressing the concerns raised:
Philosophical beliefs are protected by the Equality Act 2010. As the Minister Hugh Robertson MP said in the debate on 20th May, "philosophical beliefs are protected if they are genuinely held, and we are entirely confident that the belief that marriage should be only between a man and a woman meets those criteria 100%".

The "Public Sector Equality Duty" cannot be used against people or organisations that believe in "traditional" marriage. Discrimination is not allowed because of such a view. The Attorney General has given assurances that these protections are already in place.

The House of Commons and the House of Lords spent a great deal of time assessing this legislation, and amending and improving it as part of parliamentary scrutiny. I am satisfied with the exemptions in place for Churches and individuals who do not wish to be a part of same-sex marriages. Indeed the Churches of England and Wales agree with this analysis. 
The Church of England said that "the effect of what the Government has proposed is to leave decisions about the doctrine and practice of the Church of England with the Church of England". The Church in Wales has also said that "the Bill provides protection for the Church whilst still enabling it to make its own decision on same-sex marriage."

The full original debate is here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130205/debtext/130205-0004.htm

I would make three further key personal points:

i). This country is on a journey, and it is a journey that can be traced back many years. A hundred years ago there were the suffragettes and no opportunity for women to have the vote. Only in 1922 were women entitled to be MPs. Fifty years ago we had the civil rights movement and in 1967 homosexuality was made legal for the first time. Approximately 10 years ago civil partnerships were made legal. The world and this country are on a journey of change. The law must change with it - and the House of Lords and the House of Commons have in 2013 agreed.

ii). For me, this is a matter of commitment. I have spent 20 years as a community activist, councillor, lawyer, and now MP seeing examples of the difficulties that occur when couples fail to commit and fail to bring up children in the right way. Yet when two people show a desire to commit in the most serious way possible, are we to deny them that opportunity merely because they are of the same sex? That cannot be right. We know that married couples are twice as likely to stay together as cohabiting couples.
For my part, I cannot conceive of a God who creates, allows and permits homosexuals but would then want us to deny them the right to seek marital fulfilment within a religious context.

iii). Some have insisted that same-sex marriage would undermine the institution of marriage. Does anyone feel that they would be less married because we had gay constituents or a gay colleague who would commit to their partner in that way? I am presently not married, and this job is a real barrier to finding a wife and settling down, as it requires me to live in 2 places etc etc. But when I do find a woman mad enough to want an ageing jockey / politician husband then the fact that gay friends and gay colleagues are also getting married would not stop me from doing so.