Elections (Discrimination Against Women and Girls) Bill

Critiques the proposed Bill, questioning its definition of 'democratic' and suggesting it moves power from this democratically elected Chamber to royal prerogative.

Questions the Minister's definition of democracy, highlighting concerns about moving power from a democratic chamber to the royal prerogative.

Asks what problem the Government is trying to solve, given that there have been two snap elections in the past four years.

Supports the Bill, agreeing that any legislation must work with parliamentary arithmetic and pointing out the problem seen in the previous Parliament.

Suggests that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act was probably the worst piece of legislation introduced by the coalition Government, expressing support for this repeal.

Highlights concerns about increased spending control in elections under the proposed Bill, suggesting it would allow the Prime Minister to hold elections before public knowledge of certain issues.

Carmichael questioned the validity of the Minister's claim that the Prime Minister can command confidence, suggesting it is a matter for this House to determine. He also intervened on other MPs' points, indicating concerns about the Bill’s impact on parliamentary sovereignty.

Maskell argued that the Bill is a 'cut-and-run' measure to avoid dealing with an economic crisis, implying it undermines parliamentary processes.

Lewis supported Carmichael's historical argument but questioned whether clause 3 is strong enough to prevent future political interference in dissolving Parliament. He referenced Professor Ekins' suggestions for strengthening this provision.

Edwards echoed the Minister's comments but asked detailed questions about the implications of losing a vote of no confidence under the new Bill, indicating uncertainty and potential unintended consequences.

Bryant inquired about the historical context of motions of no confidence and sought clarity on whether various scenarios would still count as such under the new legislation, suggesting potential ambiguities.

Goodwill argued that Members can challenge Ministers on whether a vote constitutes a matter of confidence, indicating trust in parliamentary processes to determine such matters.

Wragg asked about potential judicial challenges to the ouster clause, indicating support for its legal robustness against external interference.

Doyle-Price supported the Government's acceptance of the Joint Committee’s advice regarding Prime Minister requests for dissolution, suggesting it reinforces non-justiciability.

Walker confirmed a maximum five-year term under the Bill and inquired about the latest possible general election date, indicating support for clear parliamentary terms.

Bell questioned the conventions and Dissolution principles not included in the Bill, suggesting potential oversights and ambiguities that could undermine parliamentary sovereignty.

Smith acknowledges that while certain aspects of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act worked, such as maintaining fixed terms for coalition governance until 2015 and enabling early elections, it also had significant flaws. She argues against the principle of transferring power back to an individual Prime Minister, suggesting instead that power should remain with all Members of Parliament.

Lewis agrees that the Act worked in maintaining coalition stability until 2015 but argues it failed to address stasis and paralysis in governance by preventing timely elections. He suggests an extended period of political deadlock if not for parliamentary intervention.

Shelbrooke counters Smith's argument, citing the irony that the Act was undermined by a two-thirds vote for an early election in 2017, suggesting it can be used to facilitate political games rather than ensure stable governance.

Jardine questions whether prolonged stasis in Parliament is necessarily undesirable, suggesting that the public might expect politicians to work through challenges rather than resorting to immediate elections.

Walker argues that the Act's transfer of responsibility for coalition maintenance from party leaders to Parliament was problematic and should not have been Parliament’s role in the first place.

Welcomed the Minister back to her place on the Treasury Bench and thanked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for mentioning their report. Emphasised the importance of considering the 'dignified' and 'efficient' interaction between the monarch and the Prime Minister. Raised concerns about the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, suggesting it was a case of political expediency rather than a high political ideal. Discussed the Lascelles principles which outline three instances where a wise Sovereign would refuse a Dissolution. Highlighted that politics is a numbers game and recent history has seen off-the-script actions due to testing circumstances in the 2017 Parliament, leading to a quagmire. Supported the Bill but expressed concerns about clause 3 potentially being superfluous.

O'Hara argues that repealing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act is part of a broader attack on democracy. He cites Professor Mark Elliott’s concerns about the lack of constraints on the Prime Minister's power to dissolve Parliament and calls out clause 3 as an ouster clause, which seeks to put Government actions beyond legal scrutiny.

Intervened to suggest the Bill reinstates pre-2011 status. O'Hara countered by questioning if this would reinstate the Lascelles principles and their implications.

Asked about centralisation of powers in Scotland, implying criticism towards Scottish Government's policy. O'Hara responded by defending the Scottish parliamentary system and its accountability.

Asked about the Queen's potential role in appointing a new Prime Minister if an alternative grouping could form. O'Hara clarified that clause 3 seeks to render Government decisions non-justiciable.

Questioned the implications of clause 3, suggesting it restricts legal challenges to Government decisions. O'Hara agreed that this would limit judicial oversight.

Welcomes the Bill as it restores the royal prerogative. Argues that before the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, the situation worked well during constitutional crises and political events. Supports clause 3's ouster clause to prevent judicial challenge. Suggests reducing election campaign length from over 35 days to a strict 25-day period.

Intervened to argue that while Parliament should not overrule the Government, it is essential for Parliament not to overrule the people's right to have a say in major issues like Brexit. He suggests that fixed-term elections prevent manipulation and ensure democratic processes.

Intervened to suggest that by allowing the government to choose election dates, they can manipulate conditions to their advantage. However, he also hinted at a nuanced view regarding the ouster clause.

Clarified that a specific motion from 2013 did not commit the country to deploying troops but instead guaranteed that such matters would come back before Parliament for further discussion.

He indicated dissent about the clash of UK and Welsh elections. He highlighted concerns over 'extraordinary general' election regulations and coordination between UK and Welsh Ministers.

He argued that in 2019, there was a lack of public faith in Parliament due to its inability to resolve issues. He emphasised the need for a mechanism to dissolve a failing Parliament and restore democratic processes.

Mr. Thompson argues against the Bill, stating that it undermines parliamentary checks and balances, and strips power from MPs, courts, and the Queen as a last resort for accountability. He expresses concern over the centralising tendencies of the current Government, suggesting they are weakening judicial review and curtailing public protests. Additionally, he criticises the proposal to strip powers from the Electoral Commission, viewing it suspiciously given recent investigations into political donations. Mr. Thompson advocates for greater openness, transparency, and power for Parliament and independent watchdogs instead.

Mr Whittaker supports the Bill but raises concerns about the length of the electoral timetable. He proposes that a cross-party working party should be established to examine how the general election campaign period could be shortened from 25 days without compromising voter participation.

The Fixed-term Parliaments Act was necessary for stability during the coalition government period. Its repeal risks undermining constitutional integrity, electoral law, and could disproportionately favour one party over another. The speaker also raised concerns about campaign finance regulations becoming retrospective and the potential for engaging in partisan politics by involving the monarchy.

The Fixed-term Parliaments Act offers stability and certainty, unlike the situation between 2017-2019 where there was constant uncertainty due to speculation about early elections. It allows for the possibility of an election when necessary without placing undue power in the hands of one person or party.

The problem between 2017-2019 was that there was no way to hold a snap election, which prevented the Government from governing effectively. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act allowed for such elections when two-thirds of the House agreed.

Early elections have been called carefully by Governments and not always to their advantage, making it a precedent that is rarely abused. The current Act allows for such considerations without causing instability.

Supports the Bill, arguing it is a redress of constitutional balance and reassertion of parliamentary sovereignty over political decisions. He discusses clause 1's repealing of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, citing its short-term necessity but long-term negative implications for the constitution. Bacon highlights unresolved issues regarding governance post-no-confidence vote, statutory motion restrictions, and gridlock during 2019 disputes. Emphasises clause 3’s importance in safeguarding due political process from judicial interference to prevent constitutional crises like the Miller and Cherry case.

Supports the Bill's principles but raises concerns about protecting Queen Elizabeth II’s role as sovereign. Argues for the importance of democratic process and flexibility in Parliament to match national requirements. Acknowledges past terrorist campaigns in Northern Ireland, emphasising the need for democracy to express itself effectively. Expresses dismay over 2019 suspension of Parliament which drew backlash against the Queen. Requests clarification on steps to protect constitutional monarchy from allegations of affronts to the monarch’s position.

Welcomes the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution back to her place at the Dispatch Box. Argues that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, while flawed due to 2019 circumstances, was necessary post-financial crisis and provided five years of stability. Supports returning to pre-2010 status quo but calls for improvement in the Bill. Emphasises the need for flexibility within certainty in election timing and concerns over an unnecessary ouster clause.

Ms Miller supports returning to a tried and tested process for dissolving Parliament, arguing that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act of 2011 was a product of convenience for the coalition Government. She cites evidence from Oliver Letwin, who suggested that without the Act, the coalition would not have worked as well due to instability fears. Ms Miller also notes delays caused by the 2019 constitutional crisis and suggests that returning to pre-2011 processes could streamline governance. However, she emphasises the need for a holistic review of election practices including campaign lengths.

Supports the Bill, emphasising its importance for political stability. Argues that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act was necessary in 2011 but is now redundant due to changes in the political and economic landscape. Advocates for returning to previous constitutional norms allowing the Prime Minister to dissolve Parliament without a two-thirds majority vote from MPs. Supports clause 3, which prevents judicial intervention in prorogation decisions, believing it should remain a prerogative of the Government. Suggests reducing the campaign period between Dissolution and polling day.

Aaron Bell supports the Bill, emphasising its importance in restoring constitutional norms. He acknowledges that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act of 2011 was flawed and did not survive political challenges. The Bill is seen as a step towards bipartisan support for the constitution. Bell highlights the need to prevent any parliamentary arithmetic from being unsuitable for future scenarios and argues against the concept of a super majority requirement, suggesting a simple prohibition on Prime Ministerial requests for dissolution until a certain date instead. He supports the title change from 'repeal' to 'Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill', emphasising its importance for decades or even centuries to come. Bell also addresses concerns about reducing the 25 working day election period, advocating for quicker processes through technological advancements. Additionally, he raises the need to establish clearer conventions regarding the period after elections when forming Governments. On clause 3, he supports putting into statute that the exercise of prerogative powers relating to dissolution is non-justiciable and cannot be reviewed by courts.

Mangnall supports the repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, arguing that it was introduced for political expediency and should have included a sunset clause. He emphasises that general elections are taken seriously by Governments and not abused. Mangnall agrees with the Joint Committee's recommendation to support majorities, coalitions, or minority governments, including confidence and supply agreements. He also notes that removing the Act allows Parliament to be flexible and responsive to public needs. Additionally, he states that clause 3 ensures that courts cannot interfere in how elections are called, which he welcomes.

Mr Bowie supports the repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, arguing it was a piece of constitutional vandalism that prevented effective governance. He highlights the difficulties faced during 2017-2019 and the absurdity of the indicative votes process which led to political deadlock. He emphasises that the Act failed in its purpose and expresses gratitude for the Liberal Democrats' role in enabling an election. Mr Bowie also praises Parliament's ability to adapt flexibly to circumstances and supports the Bill, calling for more such serious debates.

Welcomed the Minister back but argued that clause 3 is a power grab by the Executive. Suggested a parliamentary vote on Dissolution as an alternative to addressing perceived issues. Raised concerns about shortening election periods and proposed automatic voter registration to address processing challenges. Called for a level playing field in elections.

Welcomed the Minister back, expressing joy at her return to Parliament.

Smith argues that the prerogative power can be revived with express provision in clause 2. She emphasises the importance of maintaining a role for the sovereign in exceptional circumstances and upholding conventions such as Lascelles principles. Smith also discusses the benefit to voters from retaining the current period between Dissolution and polling day, citing changes since the original arrangements were created that necessitate this maintenance.

Carmichael interjects to question the fairness of certainty on election expense timelines, arguing that only the governing party will have this certainty under the proposed arrangements.

Reminds Members to follow covid regulations as they go to vote.