I shall not seek to persuade my hon. Friend on the fundamental issue of principle that he is discussing. I think that he has correctly identified the line in the sand. People will have to take a view based on what he has said, or on what I and others have said, in relation to that fundamental principle. However, I have a question for him. He fears that my amendments open up the possibility of Members being held to account for things that they say in the Chamber, but surely that is even truer of the Bill. Plenty of Members have been sanctioned, thrown out of the House and suspended for considerable periods as a result of things that they have said and done in the Chamber. The Government’s programme would, at that stage, require a petition to be signed by only 10% of their constituents for them to be thrown out altogether. They would cease to be Members of Parliament. Yes, they might be able to fight back in a by-election, but they would be thrown out of their jobs. That is surely a greater threat to the principles that the hon. Gentleman is guarding.
Recall of MPs Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 27 October 2014.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Recall of MPs Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
587 c123 
Session
2014-15
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-04 15:13:08 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2014-10-27/14102745000137
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2014-10-27/14102745000137
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2014-10-27/14102745000137