OVER the past few days many residents of Salisbury and South Wiltshire have written to me asking my thoughts on both the government’s version and the Goldsmith version of the ‘recall’ bill.

New laws to allow voters to ‘recall’ their MP and force a by-election have been published by the government. Under the plan, an MP could be recalled if they are convicted of an offence and sentenced to 12 months or less.

An MP could also be recalled if House of Commons authorities suspend them for at least 21 sitting days.

If one of these conditions is met, and ten per cent of voters in the MP’s constituency sign a recall petition, the seat will become vacant and a by-election held.

However, a rival plan, introduced to Parliament by the Conservative backbencher Zac Goldsmith, does not require an MP to be proven to have broken any rules. Under his private member’s bill, an MP could be recalled if five per cent of voters in a constituency sign a “notice of intent to recall” and 20 per cent of voters then sign a ‘recall petition’.

I am sceptical of any Tory, non-domiciled to avoid paying British taxes, telling the public what is good for them.

The problem with Goldsmith is that it allows a minority of voters to force an MP out of office simply because they don’t like them.

I agree with others when they say, far from empowering the electorate, this system would be open to abuse by powerful vested interests and most likely deployed to hinder social progress.

British social and political progress we enjoy today typically came from MPs who were vilified when they first campaigned for the laws and attitudes from which we now benefit.

When such MPs argued against contemporary thought, opposition was often coupled with personal abuse and smear in the media.

Consider the 1967 Abortion Act. Had there been a ‘recall’ law then, sponsors of the bill would have been easily removed to be ‘chastised’ by the majority of the electorate.

If I am allowed to, may I recall Edmund Burke, when he told the electors of Bristol that, as their representative, he betrayed them rather than served them, if he sacrificed his judgment to their opinions.

‘Recall’ campaigns could have been mounted against MPs advocating equal pay and equal rights for women, to outlaw racial discrimination, supporting gay rights, the abolition of slavery or capital punishment. Principled MPs would be vulnerable to attack for daring to argue against conventional wisdom.

The issue Goldsmith gives for recall is a reaction to the recent expenses scandal. I cannot think of one disgraced MP that survived the subsequent general election.

Despite this, my suggestion is that instead of recall, we adopt a proper AV electoral system of proportional representation.

Those MPs claiming outrageous expenses felt they could get away with it because they were in a safe seat. Under PR, MPs would have a smaller majority and if all politicians have to work harder for that smaller majority, it would keep us all honest.

While I will join many residents of Salisbury and South Wiltshire to promote the Goldsmith version of the recall bill I will suggest that neither recall bill is good enough for modern Britain. We need a radically new voting system for the 21st century.

Reeten Banerji

Prospective Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate for Salisbury