When do MPs not vote with their conscience?

Cameron hit home at PMQs when he asked why Brown wouldn't let his MPs have a free vote on the elements of the HFE Bill that were issues of conscience. The issue has been snowballing since then, culminating over the Easter weekend with Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor being the latest Church leader to speak out on the bill, and today with the broadsheet editorials united in backing a free vote.

But what exactly is a "vote of conscience"?

Is it code for letting religious folk conscientiously object? If so, who is to say which issues they are allowed to object on? When religion and politics intertwine into a worldview, putting some votes into a "religious box" is an arbitrary decision. Why not offer the same freedom for non-believers? And what votes aren't votes of conscience? Is this simply a way of avoiding neutralising controversial ethical issues? It's all very grey.

There are two more coherent approaches. One is to not be afraid of making such issues party political. The leadership decides what it believes and requires others to follow that. In this case Brown would stick to his guns, a couple of his ministers would stick to theirs and nobly resign, and the Conservatives, perhaps, would decide what elements to oppose.

The other approach would be a far more popular one, and has been described by Dan Hannan:

"It is reasonable enough for governments to impose three-line whips on vital economic measures, or on manifesto commitments. But there are plenty of issues where MPs ought to be allowed to exercise their judgment independently: 24-hour opening, say, or super-casinos, or smoking bans, or party funding. If MPs were answerable downwards to their constituents rather than upwards to their Whips, their constituents might start to respect them."

Comments

[Iain]

"But what exactly is a "vote of conscience"?"

Good question and one that isn't getting much scrutiny in the media regarding this embryology bill, for the 'conscience' issue seems to be about following the Catholic churches agenda, which isn't conscience, but seeking to replace the Party whip with the Catholic religions whip, going from a bad situation to an even worse one. For though the Party whips have severely damaged Parliament, having a religion seeking to pressurise MP's ( our representatives)to follow their diktat is completely out of order.

[Christina Speight]

Why skew the whole discussion into one about religion. I am a Christian but surely it isn't only us lot that have consciences - at least I hope so!

Iain is writing utter rubbish. The Bill is a social issue and the Roman Church has expressed its abhorrence as it should do if that is its judgment. Conscience is between man and God and the dictum 'Man proposes; God disposes' is apposite. What Iain is saying is that he dislikes the churches and that they should shut up, I might say the same about him, but I wouldn't.

If I were an MP right now - and as far as I understand the Bill - I would vote for some medical bits and against the political bits. I would be tempted to vote against the whole bill because of the way Brown has slipped into something of noble aspirations a rather nasty leftish political bit of socialist type political correctness. My conscience says it is destructive of the family and that I should vote against it.

This Bill is in nobody's manifesto so no MP has any clash of promises to contend with

[thaggie]

''Is it code for letting religious folk conscientiously object?''

There's definitely something in this, Sam. I believe my MP is going to do exactly this, and in my name as my representative. She'll be doing the flat out opposite of what I'd like her to do but I have no say in it because parties won't include this 'moral issue' in their manifestos.

Unless an MP bases his or her free vote purely on the balance of opinion in the constituency, I actually regard free votes as seriously undemocratic.

What the point about the free vote touches on is the old chestnut of whether MPs are elected to exercise their judgment on behalf of the voters, or to carry out the will of the voters. Bearing in mind the party system we have, it's fair to say that for the most part we have the latter. Until, that is, the issue of a free vote comes up (the same old question is actually worth asking when one considers labour's attitude to the EU constitution, which is that they know better than the people).

My own view about the idea of a free vote is that it is an insult to constituents. When exactly did we citizens decide that we are incapable of making our own decisions on matters of conscience? Why should we defer to MPs? This, of course, comes down to the root of the problem, which is that the parliament should not be legislating in areas such as this at all.

You're quite right to insinuate that in the worst cases Catholic MPs will be foisting their own backwards opinions on their constituents. This needs to be addressed, and if we are to legislate on moral issues, which we shouldn't, then MPs' votes should purely reflect the will of the people.

[Ben Stevenson]

Unless each local constituency holds a mini referendum on each issue, how can MPs really know for certain what view best represents the views of the people they represent? MPs can know which view is most represented in the letters they receive, but that does not necessarily represent the views of the whole electorate.

I would rather parties took positions on "moral issues" and therefore give me a chance to vote for the party that I agree with.

[niconoclast]

You cannot be a politician without having had a conscience bi pass operation.A social conscience is no substitute for a real one. Most people wouldn't trust politicians with used toilet paper.

[David Boothroyd]

There is no absolute definition of what is an 'issue of conscience' which may not be whipped, as Phil Cowley's blog points out. Sunday trading was the subject of a multi-option Bill with a free vote in 1993-94, although there were issues of freedom to trade and regulation of working hours tied up with it. Section 28 was whipped in 1988 after it was initially introduced. Capital punishment votes were whipped for Ministers until the 1950s, and in 1965 the Conservative opposition whipped a vote to send Sidney Silverman's suspensionist Bill to a Committee of the Whole House.

Most strange is the question of the European Union. Heath had a free vote on whether to join in 1971, while the Labour Party put on the whips. The European Communities Bill was then whipped. The Labour government gave a free vote on whether to accept the renegotiated terms and on the Bill to have a referendum, and then allowed Ministers to speak freely in public (but not in Parliament). During the Lib-Lab pact in 1977 the issue of proportional voting for the European Assembly was a free vote. However, all EU treaties since the 1970s have been whipped by both sides.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill in 1990 was unwhipped mainly because the government was sure of a majority on the essential parts and sure of a heavy rebellion on both sides for some of the associated issues, so it made sense.

[Iain]

"The Bill is a social issue and the Roman Church has expressed its abhorrence as it should do if that is its judgment"

For the Catholic church to express its opinion is one matter, for the Catholic church to attempt to use its religion as leverage on MP's is another and completely out of order, the latter case is what is occurring over the embryology bill.

Our MP's were elected to Parliament to represent their constituents, not to have their actions and votes dictated by the Catholic Church, for the Catholic Church to attempt this is a corruption of Parliament, perhaps verging on the treasonous.

"Conscience is between man and God"

Well certainly better than between man and the Pope or religion, for there are various religions and various interpretations of those religions claiming to know what is in the mind of God, but in reality conscience is a matter of the moral right and wrong, religion and god doesn’t necessarily come into it.

[Steevo]

In a Democracy it is the voters' responsibility to vote for the person they feel stands for the values they believe in. When such an individual runs in a specific party it cannot be assumed they should have all things in common with that of the party platform. The aspiring MP should do his/her best to be honest as to which party they think they represent the best.

This is not a perfectly predictable process of outcome. To expect an MP to hold to a 100% party vote is expecting their conscience to be dictated by a structured political body. As one who's voted for American Republicans I don't always agree with their platform and policy-making, and I don't expect each and every representative to be cogs in the machine. I'm voting for the party that best represents my values and I can only hope its representatives will be honest enough in their affiliation. And... vote smart, and good... JUST LIKE ME.

[Christina Speight]

The whole idea of a monolithic structure where Whips control everything is the first step to tyranny. It gives FAR too much power to the parties.

MPs should be selected on their own merits which includes what political label they fight under to give a general idea of their attitudes. The major criteria should relate to their soundness of judgment to take decisions on the own. Whipping - as distinct from guidance - should be confined to manifesto items and otherwise to advice only.

The parties are far too powerful as it is and to turn MPs into mandated delegates is a dreadful step to contemplate

[Roger Helmer]

MPs should always exercise their consciences. They may have to resign from government positions in consequence. But they should never accept direction from any organisation outside parliament. We don't want doctor MPs to vote the BMA line, nor lawyer MPs to vote the Law Society line. And we don't want Catholic MPs to accept direction from the Church. Nor do we want MPs seeking to impose their personal religious or moral views, through legislation, on the rest of us. I have no problem with an MP being a vegetarian. But I have a big problem if he tries to ban meat!

[thaggie]

Christina,

'The whole idea of a monolithic structure where Whips control everything is the first step to tyranny. It gives FAR too much power to the parties.'

This is nonsense. So long as we vote for parties, the only way to ensure MPs are representing their constituents is to make sure they follow the party line.

As to wanting MPs to follow the party line some of the time but not others as you suggest, this couldn't work in practice because there will always be a conflict between supporting an MP for his party's manifesto and supporting him for his character.

By all means choose one or the other, which I mentioned in my earlier post, but you can't have both. Meanwhile, you might as well view parties as inevitable. They developed naturally in England out of fluid coalitions, and the early Americans expressly wanted to avoid the growth of parties, but failed to do so. Having parties, and having MPs voted in on collective manifestos, is the only workable way of doing things. I may be wrong, but I can't think of a contemporary democracy without parties.

To avoid the conflict of priorities on the part of the elector, everything should be whipped. And if you want to complain that this leads to tyranny, the answer is that parliament should be legislating less, and should not legislate at all on issues of conscience.

[Christina Speight]

Roger Helmer. Just a reminder that we have a vegetarian Minister in charge of DEFRA and thus of all our agriculture busily presiding over the sabotaging of our whole livestock industry (nearly wiping out the hill farming industry in one massive misapplication of Foot & Mouth rules at the DEFRA caused F&M outbreak in Pirbright)

To others - and perhaps more directly on topic, nobody is telling the MPs how to vote except the Labour Whips. The Roman church is advising them as they are perfectly entitled to do. This church - of which I am not a member - is much more in tune with moral issues and I think a better judge of them. This has mixed up medical research with a further break up of the traditional family through allowing IVF treatment for Lesbians.

Thaggie @1633 . How can asnyone promise to follow a party line when the party line was not even contemplated when they were adopted as candidates and when the election was not fought on the issue or in ther manifesto.

You, Thaggie, want to put more power into the hands of untrustworthy and corrupt politicians and destroy the last vestige of independent debate and rational choice. You are advocating an elected dictatorship.

You are recommending the election of automata and you are lazily refusing to act as a responsible elector and choose men and women of integrity to make choices on your behalf.

The Americans have parties certainly but their representatives and senators cannot be relied on to rubberstamp the party line as you would wish. They have to be convinced first.

[thaggie]

Christina, I do not want to put more power in the hands of elected representatives. I've already said I don't think they should be voting on this at all.

I want people to have as direct a control over their political servants as possible, and to me this means being able to compare what they do to what they said they would do. The good thing about this is that it precludes the possibility of anything other than the people, say the Catholic church, for example, exercising influence on our representatives. What I'm talking about is restraining them, and the best way to do that is to keep them in a whipped environment.

Using the phrase 'elective dictatorship' is an interesting one. To me it seems the other way round. As soon as you allow MPs to exercise judgment on behalf of the people, that to me immediately presents them with an opportunity for abuse of power, in the name of the people of course.

There's two things I'd draw attention to to make this point.

One is what I was saying earlier in the thread, which is that there is scope in your system for enforcing moral judgments on the population. Indeed, allowing MPs to decide things for themselves will essentially allow them to act out their own prejudices, in this case involving the human/animal embryo thing. You'd only agree with this if you don't believe that individual rights are paramount.

Two is again the case of the EU constitution, though this is only the most obvious. Labour and Lib Dem MPs are going back on what they promised to the people, by saying that, 'you, the people, believe the lisbon treaty is the same as the constitution. you are wrong, so we shall ignore you'. more than this, the government can rely on the laziness of the people, which is the exact opposite of the laziness you accuse me off -- laziness which means the people cannot be bothered to scrupulously hold the government to account. If you are a Eurosceptic, you should be crying out for the government to stop believing it knows better than the people on this issue.

if you are a leftie then you should really feel the same way about tuition fees, or Iraq.
I am amazed that you

i) accept that politicians are 'untrustworthy and corrupt'

and

ii) want politicians to 'make decisions on your behalf'.

I agree they are untrustworthy and corrupt. I trust my own judgment better than theirs. I don't want them making any decisions for me, so I don't want them to do anything they weren't explicitly mandated to do.

[Neil Reddin]

The whole "conscience" concept is a red herring - either votes are whipped or they are not (albeit there are degrees of 3/2/1 line whipping).

If there is to be whipping, then the party whip (as opposed to the RC whip which is suggested as being implicit in this instance) is the least bad option - after all, most people who voted for their incumbent MP voted on party lines.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

"For the Catholic church to express its opinion is one matter, for the Catholic church to attempt to use its religion as leverage on MP's is another and completely out of order, the latter case is what is occurring over the embryology bill.

Our MP's were elected to Parliament to represent their constituents, not to have their actions and votes dictated by the Catholic Church, for the Catholic Church to attempt this is a corruption of Parliament, perhaps verging on the treasonous".

I often agree with your comments Iain, but I don't know that I can agree with that one.
Are you saying that it is wrong for any group to lobby MP's and is treasonable? The Catholic church is a group just as the Countryside alliance is. Was the C/A wrong to put pressure on Parliament to try to defeat the Foxhunting Bill? There will also be many Catholics in the constituencies
which their leaders will consider themselves to be representing. I can't agree that MP's cannot be subject to outside pressure - they do not have to capitulate, but can still do what they genuinely believe to be best - (unfortunately, probably for their parties best).

[Ben Stevenson]

Do people who object to the Catholic Church influencing MPs who belong to the church also object to atheist MPs like Evan Harris being part of the National Secular Society and generally agreeing with it? Or what about other interest groups such as the British Medical Association, or the British Heart Foundation, that seek to influence politics.

The Catholic Church is a organisation that no adult is compelled to be a part of. If people disagree with it, they can leave. In modern times the RC church can impose no penalty on its members beyond revoking their membership - similar to any other organisation. It cannot directly remove MPs from office. I don't see why people get so concerned about its influence.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

PS Iain:

I forgot to mention that I am not a Catholic- which is a victimised group - I am thinking of joining the Archbishop of Canterbury's Sharia Party (I understand you can then claim against the alimony for four wives)? I may have got that wrong?

[Yet Another Anon]

Anything could be a matter of conscience, If someone thinks a particular issue is vital then for them it is a matter of conscience however trivial it may seem to everyone else and equally if something is not for them a matter of conscience then whatever anyone else thinks it is not important to that person.

In the case of political parties, a matter of conscience is something that splits political parties and that to hold the whole party to that position would be seen as potentially tearing the party apart - at least so far as I can make out, this seems to have been the basis for classing it as such.

[Christina Speight]

To those who think whipping MPs is beneficial may I pose a specific example and he's here right on this thread above at 1632 today!

Roger is to most people in the party the very model of an MEP (or MP for that matter). As a matter of conscience he resigned the whip in the EU parliament, remains a Conservative and hopes to win again as such. He is subject to pressure from the europhile majority of Tory MEPs as well as from us in the dyed-in-the-wool anti-EU brigade. In what way is our pressure any better than that of the Roman church?

But back to Thaggie. As far as I can make out, short of having referendums on everything you want the party bosses to control all issues and to have absolute power over every issue for the duration of their allotted span. Circumstances change as we are seeing economically right now for example. Leave it all to Big Brother is your watch-cry. Personally I agree that "absolute power corrupts absolutely" and we have seen throughout the last century that politics declined precisely in step with the power of the Whips, for no government then can ever fear being defeated by a superior argument.

I don't want politicians making decisions over my head on the say-so of a dozen corrupt leaders. I would rather have 625 people listening to the arguments and making up their own minds/. The sanctity of The Manifesto is largely a convenient fiction - it is only published not to be read beforehand but to be (mis)quoted as a post hoc justification.

It's up to voters to work out if the candidates are honest, experienced and of good judgment. Frankly thisd is more important than a party label. See not only Roger but also Dan Hannan, Kate Hooey, Frank Field.

The system you sound as if you are recommending is the antithesis of rational discussion and rational decisions. It is the politics of the Lowest Common Denominator.

[Yet Another Anon]

To those who think whipping MPs is beneficial may I pose a specific example and he's here right on this thread above at 1632 today!
Whipping isn't just about telling people how to vote in divisions, it is also about telling them when particular votes are being held.

To have a political party there has to be discipline, so where people are forced to take a wrong line, the answer is not to make it a free vote, but rather to change it so that the whipping follows the right decisions. For me withdrawing from the EU and restoring Capital Punishment are fundamental issues - if it was up to me people would be whipped into voting for such things.

[Iain]

"Are you saying that it is wrong for any group to lobby MP's and is treasonable? "

No, I think I made the distinction that it was fine for the Catholic church, or anybody else for that matter, to express an opinion, or as you say lobby. What I think is out of order is when this lobbying changes to coercion, this is what I believe we are seeing with the Catholic church over this and previously the abortion debate.

[Cllr Nicholas Bennett]

I am afraid that Iain has little understanding of the role of MPs or of the Catholic Church. As a former MP and a Catholic let me explain.

As Burke pointed out more than 200 years ago, an MP is a representative not a delegate. He owes his constituents a duty to use his judgement. As 99.9% of MPs are elected as a representative for a Party most of the time they will vote according to their party whip. They do so because they support the policies of the Party whose money and effort has seen them elected. There will be times when they may have strong objections to the line taken by the Party and they must decide whether the issues are big enough for them to rebel and take the consequences which may follow.

All Parties, until recently, have accepted that there are issues which transcend Party and on which Political Parties have been wary of including in their manifestos. These 'conscience' issues revolve round issues of ethics and morality. Parties recognise that such issues go to the very core of an individual’s beliefs and are above politics as such. Matters of morality and ethics are at the heart of what motivates a person as a human being. If, as the Catholic Church teaches, you believe that human life begins at conception - a perfectly reasonable belief - then creating and using human embryos in the way that some scientists wish to do is an anathema. Those MPs who hold the view that the ends justify the means clearly will not accept this view. So be it, many of them will vote in favour of the Bill. That doesn't make their position superior to those who oppose it.

The Catholic Church has as much right to campaign against such legislation as those who argue in its support. Membership of the Church is voluntary and people join and leave of their own free will. The Church asks those who belong to examine their own consciences in this matter. If an individual Catholic decides to support a Bill which contains issues which run directly contrary to the teaching of the Church over 2000 years they are expected ask themselves whether they may be in error and misinformed their conscience. The Church doesn't issue 'dictats' or 'whips’ to MPs who are Catholic. Indeed in the current controversy Cardinals O'Brien and Murphy O'Connor have merely asked that the matter be treated as a matter of conscience and that there be a free vote. Cardinal O'Brien and Archbishop Nicholls have reiterated the Church's teaching on the sanctity of human life.

[Iain]

"Indeed in the current controversy Cardinals O'Brien and Murphy O'Connor have merely asked that the matter be treated as a matter of conscience and that there be a free vote."

That's the debating issue, for I believe the Cardinals have gone beyond that point, where the lobbying has become coercion, for in the previous abortion debate there was talk coming from the Catholic church of denying Catholic MP's, who the Catholic church feel voted the wrong way, to be denied communion, here there has been some very dark language used by the Cardinals to coerce their MP flock to vote their way, and in Louise Bagshawe's article on this message board she cites MP's being forced to commit ‘a serious sin of scandal’, which smacks of fairly crude moral blackmail.

As I have stated, I have no problem with lobbying, that’s politics, but coercion is out of order and this is what I think the Catholic church has been up to, as such with the Pope dictating the conscience issues of the Catholic church it strays into the area of treason, for the 1689 Bill of Rights states….. That noe Forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authoritie Ecclesiastical or Spirituall within this Realme Soe helpe me God.

In regard to MP’s role, I fully comprehend that they aren’t delegates but there to represent their constituents, but neither are they there to be delegates of the Catholic church, something the Catholic church in its attempted coercion of MP’s seems to fail to comprehend. But perhaps the most damaging effect of the Catholic churches high profile attempted intervention in our political life, is to open up the Pandora’s box of sectarianism in our Parliament, for those of us who aren’t Catholics, but have Catholic MP’s are now going to have to ask them who dictates their conscience, their own sense of right and wrong, or the Pope’s?

[Cllr Nicholas Bennett]

Please indicate the coercion?

A Catholic has, as I indicated in my previous post, freedom of conscience. If he or she comes to a different conclusion to that of the Church and they are a full member of the Church they have a duty to examine whether they may be in error and may have misinformed their conscience. The likelihood is that is that, as one individual with all the frailties of a human being, is likely to be wrong rather than the Church which has studied and debated the issues for 2000 years.

Neither the Pope, nor the Church as a whole, can dictate to anyone.

My judgement as to what is right or wrong in a particular instance will be made on the basis of the underlying beliefs which I already hold. Any decision, if it is to have any intellectual rigour, will have to be consistent with those beliefs. If I believe that life begins at conception and that it is God given, it would be wholly illogical and inconsistent to then believe that creating embryos to experiment on them or to use them for any other purpose than to allow them to develop as an individual person, was right.