It’s fair to say that MPs are investigated more thoroughly by the press and social media than ever before and rightly so. I believe the workings of Westminster are more transparent than they have ever been but of course this raises the question: what happens when MPs fall seriously short of voters’ expectations?

A Recall of MPs Act is being debated in Parliament but, in my view, what is being proposed is far too timid and does not empower constituents to make the decision in the way that was originally envisaged. Parliament should go further and I am supporting important amendments that are being put forward by colleagues led by the MP for Richmond Park, Zac Goldsmith. Let me explain:

What the Government is proposing is that an MP who has been sentenced to a jail term or been suspended from Parliament for at least 21 days, at the decision of a committee of MPs, can find themselves put to a vote in their constituency. A vote in the constituency of ten percent of voters would then force a by-election.

My problem with this is that this leaves the initial decision in the hands of a committee of MPs or the courts. Constituents may well feel that there are circumstances, not necessarily criminal or likely to lead to suspension from Parliament, which might also justify a Recall vote - where they believe they have been badly let down or failed by their MP.

Obviously what should be avoided are occasions when political opponents or those with personal grudges can use Recall simply to try to unseat a local MP. And there are some who fear that the amendments I am supporting would licence exactly these kind of attempts, leading to a constant stream of challenges - especially in marginal constituencies like Ealing Central and Acton!

Richmond Park MP Zac Goldsmith
Richmond Park MP Zac Goldsmith

But I believe that we are putting forward an alternative to the Government proposals that  allows constituents to trigger the Recall process but only by garnering wide constituency support - which I think would preclude those who just want to cause trouble. A five percent vote of constituents would be the trigger - gathered in just one month - but would then have to be followed by a vote, done by personal signature at a central point like a Town Hall, of 20 percent of all constituents.  When some of my colleagues say that our amendments leave it too wide open so that any flimsy excuse could start the process, I say that if 20 percent of constituents are prepared to drive to the Town Hall to sign a petition - and within an 8 week period - then there is obviously a serious problem with the local MP. Even after that there would have to be a referendum followed by the by-election itself in which the local MP would be free to stand again.

Five years between elections can be too long to wait if an MP has seriously let the voters down. We must trust the common sense of constituents who will easily spot the difference between opportunistic attempts to unseat an MP and a genuine serious grievance. This can be a significant step in us building a 21st Century democracy.

Update: Since the time of writing, Zac Goldsmith’s amendments were voted against in the House of Commons. Angie and many of her Conservative colleagues were disappointed by this but will continue to support calls for a genuine system of recall for failing MPs.