I have secured today’s debate to open the discussion on adopting new constitutional mechanisms that could allow the people to directly call a general election. That would apply in scenarios where the vast majority have lost faith in the Government, as they clearly have now, but our parliamentary system fails to respond to their wishes. It is a scar on our democracy that there is currently no mechanism at all for people to do that. The debate is the first stage in my push for such a mechanism. The next stage will be to seek to progress a new Bill through Parliament in the coming weeks in line with my proposal, which I will detail later in the speech.
Such a Bill will not get us the general election that we need right now.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for introducing the debate. There is no doubt that Members have conflicting views about calling a general election. There are two key issues for my constituents: the cost of living and the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, which is currently going through Westminster. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that, after a period of instability, it is time to give the Prime Minister and his Government a chance to deliver on their promises and maintain the legislative process on which they were elected?
I thank the hon. Member, who is ever assiduous in attending and contributing to these important debates, for his intervention. My opinion is that this Government have had more than enough chances to deliver, and while we disagree on the need for a general election now, I will make some wider points that he might be interested in considering.
I hope that this discussion will help to kick-start a conversation about why we need to modernise our democracy to empower ordinary people and prevent an unrepresentative Government or unrepresentative Governments from clinging on to power when people have had enough. Of course, such a mechanism should only be able to be used in extraordinary times, but the current crisis shows why it is needed.
Such a Bill is part of a series of measures that we need to restore trust in our democracy. For example, last year I introduced a Bill seeking to ban MPs from taking second jobs. My latest proposal is for a form of recall mechanism, and it is a response to the political crisis we face. We have had two new Prime Ministers since the public last had their say at the 2019 election. Just 80,000 Conservative party members put one of those Prime Ministers into Downing Street, and even fewer people had a say with her successor, who was chosen solely by Conservative MPs. Both these Prime Ministers have been intent on tearing up the promises that their party was elected on in 2019. For example, who voted in the 2019 election for the new wave of austerity that looks set to be announced later this week?
This Government have no mandate. They have also undermined political trust. Institute for Public Policy Research findings on levels of trust in our politics should concern every single Member of this House. It found that trust in politicians is at the lowest level on record, with two in three now seeing politicians as “merely out for themselves” and just 4% of British people believing that parliamentarians are doing their best for the country. No one side in this House can take satisfaction from this. Voters across the political spectrum are united in their distrust: 67% of remain voters, 68% of leave voters, 64% of Conservative voters and 69% of Labour voters believe that politicians are merely out for themselves.
I allowed the hon. Gentleman to develop his argument, because I assumed that he was going to at least give a date by which time a recall would be permissible. Surely, if we are to have any form of stable Government, there must be a time limit between the election of a Government and a recall petition of at least—what?—two years?
The hon. Gentleman anticipates the point that I will move on to. It may be a case of great minds think alike.
That brings us to today. A form of recall power exists in a diverse range of countries and political systems. Over the past century, the countries that have made the greatest use of recall are Peru, Japan, the United States and Poland. Academic researchers note that recall provisions also exist at one level of Government or another—local, regional or national—in Argentina, Bolivia, Canada, Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Germany, Japan, Liechtenstein, Mexico, Latvia and Switzerland.
Perhaps the most famous case of recall in recent decades is the 2003 recall in California of Governor Gray Davis, where growing dissatisfaction about energy provision and public services led to the election of Governor Schwarzenegger. Because of the high interest in the recall election, the new governor received 650,000 more votes in his election than Governor Davis had received. Recall is generally used to remove individual elected officials, including Presidents, but there are examples, including the German Land of Berlin, where recall, initiated and approved by citizens, can be applied to the entire Parliament. Latvia goes even further: the electorate have a constitutional right to initiate a national referendum to recall Parliament. It is worth noting that recall is now supported by the largest progressive party in France. Mexico held its first-ever national recall election on the President earlier this year. Although that was initiated by the President, perhaps Mexico will be the next country to hold a citizen-initiated recall in the future.
According to Welp and Whitehead, the recall is currently in a “boom phase”, with Welp noting that recall provisions
“have been introduced more frequently since the 1980s”,
This is an opening gambit to try to start a discussion. I am pleased that the Minister seems to be interested in the idea. In his response, if time allows, perhaps he will say that in principle he agrees with this further means of improving and refining our democracy.
Whatever arguments are made against my plan, it cannot be said that in principle recall procedures are incompatible with our democracy. In 2015, this House enacted the Recall of MPs Act, a new law under which voters would be able to recall their constituency Member of Parliament in certain circumstances. This was in response to the MPs expenses scandal. Under this new Act, for a recall petition to be successful, 10% of eligible registered voters need to sign a petition that is open for six weeks. Electors may sign in person, by post or by proxy. The Recall of MPs Act was undoubtedly a step forward, but a major shortcoming is that, unlike provisions in other countries, it does not allow constituents to begin proceedings unless the MP is found guilty of wrongdoing. This shortcoming was widely recognised at the time. The then Conservative MP, now Lord Goldsmith, said at the time:
“Recall is supposed to be about empowering voters to hold their MPs to account, and the Government’s proposals fall scandalously short. They don’t empower voters in any meaningful sense at all”.
We are obviously from the two ends of the political spectrum, but I very much agree with those remarks. Since 2015 and the new recall Act, the rot has got ever deeper in our politics and much bolder measures are required.
Our democracy is in crisis. People out there have lost faith in this Government and are losing trust in our institutions. If we want to rebuild trust in our institutions, people need to see that they are working for them. Recall can be a key way of empowering people and restoring trust in our democratic institutions. Although recall is widely used across the world in a variety of contexts, I accept that it is not commonly used at the national level in Europe, but it was once uncommon for women to have the vote. When Finland became the first country in Europe to give women the vote in 1906, it was radical, it was a new idea, it was untested in Europe, and people said it would never work. Of course, it did, and it was right. Democracies therefore can be upgraded for the better. This place is often styled the mother of all Parliaments, so why should Britain not be a pioneer for a better democracy? We should acknowledge the deep deficiencies of our system and organise for something better.
I must say that it is a pleasure—a genuine pleasure—to take part in an Adjournment debate such as this, to respond to a speech that has been very well researched, and to think about the big and important questions we should we always consider when looking at the future of our constitution and our democracy. To an extent, we spend too little time in this place thinking about how the operation of our Parliament, our Government and our relationship with the voters works, so I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for taking the time to do this work.
As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman is proposing that we amend the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022 to the effect that the sovereign would dissolve Parliament if that Parliament was more than halfway complete—halfway through its five-year maximum term—and if at least half the number of voters who had voted at the previous general election signed a petition calling for Parliament to be dissolved, although as he said, that threshold is perhaps up for debate and is a starter for ten.
There is a mechanism that a Government could use if they wished to pursue this. We have had a very successful online petitions website for a number of years now, which allows people to register their interest in particular issues and to ask the Government to respond. At the moment, however, it does not quite have the verification capabilities necessary to allow Governments to be assured that those signing up are genuine voters, but perhaps those problems can be overcome. With reference to that successful site, I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the fact that, for the past four months, it has had a live petition calling for a general election as soon as possible; in those four months it has acquired about 900,000 votes, which is a good sum but a very long way off the 50% that would be necessary under his system to trigger a general election. Even if these are, by his definition, extraordinary times, the clamour for a general election might not, therefore, be as strong as his remarks suggested.
The Minister mis-portrays my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), who is more a Digger and Leveller than a Chartist. He seems to be arguing about stability and how we would be in a continuous campaigning mode. Some people would call that campaigning; others might call it a continuous accountability mode in which Governments have to demonstrate daily that they are abiding by the will of the people who elected them. That is no bad thing, is it?
I stand corrected on the heritage of the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon). Accountability comes in many forms. We are all accountable to our electorate through media and debates such as this. However, that is different from having a system that gives Governments a period of up to five years in power to make decisions that they can prove the benefits of. Indeed, it was not so long ago that we had Parliaments of seven years in this country and that the French presidency lasted seven years for the reason that Governments had time to fix problems and prove that their method of government was effective.
That leaves the decision on when to call a general election to the whim of a Prime Minister and the judgment of the ruling party on when it can manipulate its popularity. Surely that is equally unstable. All we want to do is enable the people to make that decision.
I have a distinct recollection of a Prime Minister trying to do that in the not-too-distant past and finding that the electorate took a different view on whether she had made the right decision to call that election. Governments and Prime Ministers use that power at their peril, and they are aware of that.
To my mind, and the mind of the Government, it is much better to be able to guarantee a period in which a Prime Minister and Executive who hold the confidence of the House can legislate and operate in order to solve the problems that the country faces. To all parliamentarians comes judgment day, as Karl Popper referred to it. We must all face an election. The question is when. When our electorate go to the polls, they know that they are likely voting for us to be here for five years and on the understanding that, whoever gets into power will get five years to do the best job they can for the country and solve the problems that the country faces. That system has served us well, and that is why we continue to defend it. It has been a pleasure to debate with the hon. Member for Leeds East this evening, and I look forward to talking to him on constitutional matters long into the future.
Trust, I am afraid, is in free fall. The 9% fall we have witnessed over the last 18 months shows a rapid acceleration of growing distrust. In comparison, it took seven years for the previous drop of 9 percentage points, and 42 years before that. The IPPR warns that a decrease in trust in politicians is profoundly disturbing. It is linked to long-term damaging consequences such as lower voter turnout, especially among under-represented groups. The Office for National Statistics reports similar concerns with trust in our democratic institutions. Deep reform of our economy and politics will be needed to address this.
It is clear that our democracy is not fit for purpose, and there are two ways of dealing with this crisis of democracy. There is the method of this Government, which is to attack hard-won civil liberties and curtail democratic rights. This authoritarian drift combines anti-trade union legislation with draconian attacks on the right to peaceful protest and voter suppression through the introduction of voter ID, which will target black, Asian and minority ethnic and working-class voters. This authoritarian approach has even led to police arresting journalists covering protests. The alternative is to strengthen democratic rights and modernise our democratic processes.
That brings me on to my proposal, which is a form of recall procedure through a verified petition to call a general election. The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance describes such recall processes as a form of “direct democracy” and a
“political instrument through which the electorate in a particular electoral jurisdiction can express their dissatisfaction.”
It adds that
“the procedure of the recall is associated with the idea that representatives must remain accountable to the people who elected them.”
So, voters should be able to terminate the mandate before the end of a term when their representatives fall short of expectations.
Welp and Whitehead explain in their 2020 book “The Politics of Recall” that
“The idea of ‘recall’ elections is not a last minute ‘add on’ to principles of representative government, but a logical strand of thought interwoven into its foundational reasoning.”
In the same book, Matt Qvortrup traces the development of the recall in the history of political philosophy from the Roman republic to the present day. While I do not have time today to recount the history of recalls in full, I would like to highlight that movements that did so much in the development of our own democracy envisaged mechanisms with echoes of what I am proposing today. During the English revolution, the leading Leveller, Lieutenant Colonel John Lilburne, championed recall as one of the democratic correctives to the risk of an oppressive, overbearing Parliament. The Chartists envisioned annual elections, with the arguments given then not so different from those offered by contemporary movements in favour of recall. There was even a provision for the recall of congressmen by their voters in the first draft of the American constitution written by James Madison.
Later in the United States, the Socialist Labour party and the Populist party pushed that idea as we approached the 20th century. Recall was then included in the new charter of the city of Los Angeles in 1903, and within a decade, it had been taken up by 200 cities and three states. Switzerland was the first modern liberal democracy to introduce recall at the end of the 19th century, although only at a sub-national level.
In the post-war era, recall was used as part of a series of direct democratic provisions in Japan from 1947 to empower citizens with the right to initiate petitions to dissolve local assemblies, recall individual assembly members and recall mayors or governors. More recently, the push for recall has been linked with the introduction of democracy. After the demise of Latin American dictatorships in the 1980s, recall increased its presence and integrated representative democracy with participatory democracy. Likewise, Germany and Poland introduced recall powers after the fall of the Berlin wall.
“in the past were restricted to small municipalities, they have recently reached bigger units such as California, Warsaw, Lima and even presidents.”
Why is recall becoming more popular? Welp and Whitehead explain that
“citizen dissatisfaction with their elected representatives is sufficiently acute and widespread to generate persistent pressure for the introduction of more direct forms of accountability.”
They argue that although recall is not without risk,
“There is some serious empirical support for the proposition that recall mechanisms...can indeed provide genuine improvements to the quality and credibility of democratic institutions when introduced and integrated into the rest of the representative system in a careful and constructive manner.”
My proposal would, as a starting point, seek to amend the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022 to allow people to directly call an election under the following circumstances: first, if we are more than halfway through the five-year maximum period for a Parliament; and secondly, if at least half the number of voters in the previous general election endorse the call for an early general election via an official petition process.
That said, his well-considered remarks deserve proper consideration here, although I say at the outset—this will be no surprise to the hon. Gentleman—that we are not inclined to support his proposals. The 2022 Act, which fairly recently acquired Royal Assent, covered many of the issues on how Parliament is to be dissolved and general elections are to be held. I seem to remember that there was no opposition on that from the Labour Benches; I believe all Labour Members abstained. The hon. Gentleman perhaps missed an opportunity to table amendments at that time, but the joy of our system is that we can bring forward good ideas—or less good ideas—at any point.
For a number of practical reasons, the hon. Gentleman’s proposal should be resisted and treated with great caution. It would introduce an unnecessary element of instability into our system; if we were to create a petition mechanism that kicked in at two and a half years, we would very likely find that we quickly entered a time of perpetual campaigning—two and a half years of preparation for starting an official petition campaign, followed by two and a half years of trying to get the petition through. I know the hon. Gentleman is an avid campaigner and will probably relish that prospect, but for those of us who cherish the opportunity for stable Government it would prove a great distraction.
I thought the hon. Gentleman might well mention the Chartists; indeed I feel I see before me a descendant of the Chartists of old. He will take some comfort from the fact that the Chartists were proved right on all their demands apart from one—their request for annual Parliaments. At the time, even some of their most ardent followers disputed the idea on grounds that it would create unnecessary cost, distraction and the inability of Governments to operate over the medium term.
That brings us to the crux of why the proposal would could be damaging to our finely balanced constitution. It is important to have Governments who can be assured that if they have a majority in the House—if they can command the confidence of the House—they will have space to operate and to take difficult decisions. Stability is often most needed at times when Governments are most unpopular, and we would run the risk of introducing a mechanism that would create further instability in periods of instability, and that could be to the detriment of all of us. There is, however, a very interesting idea in the hon. Gentleman’s proposals, and I am sure he will continue to develop them and bring them back to the House.