Political

Jo Swinson’s pairing problem shows a wider problem with Parliament’s rules

A further twist to the controversial vote on Europe this week: it turns out that although Jo Swinson was, very reasonably, on maternity leave and paired, the Conservative she was paired with broke the pair and voted:

Pairing itself is a procedure that, although it has been around for centuries, is still an ‘unofficial’ procedure that happens outside Parliament’s formal rules. It is the arrangement which is made between two MPs who would otherwise vote opposite ways that each of them will not vote.

PODCAST - How to make Parliament work better, with Professor Meg Russell

I’m so pleased to have on the podcast an absolute A-lister when it comes to how politics works in the UK, Professor Meg Russell of the Constitution Unit. more

Pairing therefore means no difference to the outcome of the vote results, and allows MPs to cater for being ill, having a pressing family appointment and indeed the other pressure of work on an MP which requires them to do all sorts of other things in addition to being in Parliament. (Such as being a minister, or meeting constituents, or researching their speech for the next day, or 1,001 other tasks which would have people loudly complaining that their MP isn’t doing their job if they passed up on all of them.) Pairing is particularly useful as not only whether or not a vote is going to be close is not always known in advance, nor is the time of the vote or even whether or not there will be a vote.

The pairing breakdown in this case is mired in controversy. The Conservative Brandon Lewis claims it was a mistake that he didn’t avoid voting, but oddly made that mistake twice on the very close votes and yet kept to it on all the other votes that evening. Jo Swinson and other Lib Dems have said as a result that they don’t believe it was a mistake.

As The Times reports:

The Times story on how Conservative Chief Whip broke pairing arrangements

Such a situation could happen at all because pairing is outside the rules of Parliament. There is no way to enforce that promise not to vote. Pairing is rather dependent on goodwill. It is basically a case of mutual promises made on the basis that you are both decent human beings and/or know that breaking a pairing arrangement will cost you goodwill and help in the future.

A subsidiary problem with pairing is that MPs who are paired are not listed as such in the voting records. Which means an MP who is paired, an MP who abstains and an MP who decides to lie drunk on their sofa watching Countdown are all recorded the same way, i.e. not at all. That’s not great for voters wanting to know what their MP did. (Nor is it great for historians either, something which kept me busy during my PhD years trying to work out which MPs were actually paired on a key Parliamentary vote in the 19th century which passed by just one.)

But the other problem is that there aren’t more sensible arrangements for MPs on paternity leave. As Lib Dem Chief Whip Alistair Carmichael said:

MPs who are absent from Parliament on maternity, paternity or adoption leave are entitled to some piece of mind that representing their constituents interests can be safely attended to in some way.

If an absent MP were to be allowed to nominate a proxy for the purpose of voting then the sort of mistake we saw with Jo Swinson would not have happened.

The current system is archaic and it is long past time it was reformed. Given the number of very close votes, it is clear that urgent action is required. The Government must therefore give MPs a say before the summer recess.

Writing on Facebook he added:

After last night’s shenanigans in the House of Commons this afternoon I was able to secure an urgent question on the need for a more modern way of providing baby leave for MPs. I was pleasantly surprised by the support from all parties.

6 responses to “Jo Swinson’s pairing problem shows a wider problem with Parliament’s rules”

  1. I often wonder whether our ‘niceness’ should be ditched to fight fire with fire. Nastiness could get us some headlines and support from non Tory lovers

  2. For a small recorded vote such as those in parliament, remote electronic voting should be at least as reliable as the current method as well as being faster and more convenient.

  3. With pressure on the Government to win pairing ought to be more important to them and they are unwise to risk it breaking down.

  4. In my dealing with Conservative/Labour parties lying & cheating has become a way of life. As both Conservatives & Labour are in an unbelievably difficult position they will tend to lie & cheat more. We LiberalDemocrats must stand up for our better values.

  5. Frankly I’m more concerned about Vince and Tim not being there to vote, all this malarkey about not thinking it would be as close as it was is irrelevant.
    We (as a party) need to provide a clear statement on each Brexit vote that we oppose it, not that it’s more important to be talking about Gay Sex to a church group, which he seems to do more than any straight man I’ve ever met, than it is to do the job for which he is employed.
    Vince is becoming more of a liability as time goes on, not only does he provide a permanent reminder of ur time supporting a weak Tory party but he now provides our opponents with the opportunity to point and say he’s doing the same again. It’s time for a new leadership that was not involved in the coalition to step up

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments and data you submit with them will be handled in line with the privacy and moderation policies.