I recognise that I have written about this situation before, but in light of the 1,967 spoilt ballots
(9 Jun, 08:32 on the link) in the recent general election and John
Bercow's pledge to ask the Procedure Committee, when Commons select
committees are reformed, to reconsider the situation whereby four
constituencies have no MP able to speak in debates or vote and one
constituency has no properly contested election either, I have written
the following letter to him:
Mr Bercow,
The situation with
the Speaker's Seat, as it stands, cannot go on any longer. In the
Buckingham constituency, electors (not me, since I was under 18 in 2010
and 2015 and very fortunately able to vote in Exeter (my university's
constituency) in 2017) have had to vote in three elections where they
were unable to express their support for one of three major parties
separate to the other two - they have been unable to use their vote to
express what policy program they wanted implemented in government. This
is a big problem, it means that over 70,000 people are effectively
disenfranchised.
The Procedure Committee previously said that the
system wasn't worth changing because it would create another rank of MP,
the Speaker would not be held accountable by constituents, and there
would be no clear place for the Speaker to go after losing their
position. They have also said that the Speaker has unprecedented access
to ministers which accounts for the Speaker's inability to speak or vote
in debates and you, Mr Bercow, have said before that your position is
similar to that of a government minister - essentially unable to vote
the way they personally wish in debates (and the existence of the Deputy
Speakers ensures that, when votes are divided on partisan lines, there
is no impact on which way that vote goes), but having more influence in
government itself and the policies enacted by it.
On the 'another
rank of MP' and accountability points, it seems it would be worth
creating this 'new rank' to enfranchise over 70,000 people (over 280,000
people if you include the Deputy Speakers, who are similarly
constrained although at least their voters have a choice in elections
(which, I note, isn't said to affect the neutrality of said Deputy
Speakers, so maybe the three major parties are wrong to stand aside in
the Speaker's seat for the sake of defending the Speaker's neutrality)),
and accountability could be maintained by the House of Commons who
collectively represent the whole country rather than just one
constituency. I note that in the Republic of Ireland the Ceann Comhairle
is automatically returned at elections and they don't seem to view that
as much of an issue there (their seat is not replaced by an elected
member, but it's less of an issue there because their fairer voting
system means that the Speaker's constituency has other representatives).
Also, the whole public can hold the Speaker to account by writing to
the Speaker's Office. If the Commons is still concerned about
accountability, they could perhaps introduce some sort of national
recall system for the Speaker, but I recognise this would be tricky to
find consensus on and hard to organise. I think holding the public
holding the Speaker to account via the Commons and the Speaker's Office
is fine.
As for the Speaker having no place to go after losing
their position, because, as the Procedure Committee says, it's not
certain that elevation to the House of Lords will always be possible in
the future, I don't think this should be much of a concern. If the
Speaker, after losing or resigning their position, wishes to be elected
to the House of Commons as a typical MP once more, they should use the
typical mechanisms of doing so - probably joining a political party and
seeking selection in that. It would be up to their individual candidacy
and political parties to get them elected, which is the same for anyone
else in the country who wishes to become an MP. I don't think that MPs
become the Speaker just so they have a good chance of elevation to the
House of Lords after their term as Speaker, they become the Speaker
because they wish to run the prestigious institution that is the House
of Commons, that wouldn't change under a St Stephen's Seat solution.
On
the argument that the Speaker's access to government ministers
compensates for the disenfranchisement of 70,000/280,000 people, um, it
doesn't. Government ministers are still able to resign their position
and vote against the government on a certain measure or find a clever
way to abstain on an issue (Jeremy Wright (Attorney General) did that
latter for HS2). They are also able to speak in debates, and they have
significantly more leverage than the Speaker because their potential
rebellion or publicly speaking out on a certain issue can force the
government to change their minds (for example Conservative ministers
thinking that Stella Creasy's amendment providing free abortion on the
NHS for Northern Irish women was worth speaking out on and perhaps even
rebelling on) and that then forcing the government to change their mind
on the issue - a real policy outcome. Various u-turns during the
2015-2017 government were also caused by potential backbench rebellion.
Obviously this force is stronger during governments with slimmer
majorities and, thus, weaker mandates, but it also happens over
governments with decent majorities, like the rebellion on ID cards
during the Blair government.
So the Procedure Committee has got
this wrong and they must not trample on the rights of 70,000/280,000
people to have proper elections and a proper MP respectively. They
should implement the St Stephen's Seat solution which they are aware of.
It's not a perfect solution, but in the absence of wider reaching
voting reform (like using alternates as they do in France (I think?)
and/or proportional representation, preferably STV in my view), it's the
course that must be taken. I hope that you will put all these points to
the Procedure Committee.
On top of all this, I invite the
Procedure Committee to consider the number of spoilt ballots in
Buckingham in 2010, 2015, and 2017 as well as consider that many upset
by the system may not have voted and many may have voted for yourself,
Mr Bercow, anyway or, indeed, for Scott Raven, the independent candidate
protesting the system, or the Greens or UKIP (where they otherwise may
have voted Labour, Lib Dem, or Conservative) in the 2017 election
(similarly in 2010 and 2015) despite opposing the system. There's also
been a number of petitions on the issue which have garnered a
significant number of signatures.
Mr Bercow, I also call on you to
speak out against the current system more publicly when you step down
from your position as Speaker, as Speaker Boothroyd has done, since this
issue will impact the next constituency whose MP decides to become the
Speaker, and it will continue to affect the three constituencies whose
MPs are Deputy Speakers.
Regards,
Adam Eveleigh
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.