Electoral Reform Bill - Clause 2, Amendment 2, New clause 1-5

The Minister seeks guidance on whether she should respond in advance or wait for others to speak. She acknowledges that the Government's position can be addressed after Members have spoken, indicating a willingness to debate each point raised.

Asks if the Government recognises the Lascelles principles and their impact on clause 2, suggesting that these principles should guide any request for a dissolution by the monarch.

Argues that there could be other circumstances where a Prime Minister's request to dissolve Parliament might be refused, implying a need for clarity on such decisions.

Agrees that clause 3 highlights important issues and makes it clear that Parliament is supreme, reinforcing the argument for parliamentary authority over dissolution.

Draws attention to the word 'purported' in clause 3, suggesting it undermines judicial oversight. He questions whether Parliament is being asked to give powers that exceed those granted by law.

Questions the five-year election period proposed in clause 2, arguing it would result in the longest period between elections of any democracy. He suggests a maximum five-year term instead.

Indicated assent, suggesting agreement with the proposed reforms or supporting points raised by fellow MPs.

Asks about remedies for a Prime Minister requesting premature dissolution. He seeks clarification on whether new clauses would address such scenarios, indicating reservations about proposed reforms.

Mr Bell intervened to suggest that the Association of Electoral Administrators wants an extended 30-day timetable for elections. He argued that while this may be ideal, it is not practical as elections aim to resolve national issues efficiently.

Mr Grady requested an intervention from the Minister but his request was declined, indicating a stance aligned with supporting further debate on electoral arrangements.

Ms Cat Smith emphasises the importance of parliamentary sovereignty, arguing that new clause 2 would strengthen democracy by making dissolution subject to a vote in Parliament. She highlights concerns about electoral advantages, potential judicial involvement, and the role of the Crown in political decisions.

Mr Lloyd Russell-Moyle agrees with Ms Cat Smith's argument that new clause 2 is an effective way to keep the courts out of dissolution decisions, contrasting it favourably against the ouster clause proposed in the Bill.

Mr Alec Shelbrooke counters Ms Smith's arguments by questioning the effectiveness of parliamentary control over dissolution, citing past instances where Parliament was deadlocked. He believes that when such deadlock occurs, there should be a mechanism for immediate resignation rather than prolonged parliamentary involvement.

Mr Chris Bryant supports the argument presented by Ms Smith, asserting that Parliament should have control over dissolution decisions to avoid political deadlock and ensure democratic integrity. He suggests that new clause 2 would prevent such deadlocks from causing prolonged uncertainty.

Chris Bryant interjected to question whether, if new clause 1 is not accepted, the next general election could be held as late as 23 January 2025.

Alec Shelbrooke emphasised the financial burden on first-time candidates who often have to quit their jobs for extended campaigns. He suggested studying the period between a Prime Minister's announcement and the start of an election campaign.

Clarkson agreed with Shelbrooke, highlighting that extended campaigns wear down both candidates and voters. He also pointed out the potential impact on voter turnout.

Bell highlighted the period between a Prime Minister's announcement and election day, noting that MPs are unavailable to address casework during this time. This can affect constituents' access to support.

Green suggested that local authorities should always be prepared for elections, regardless of their complexity or timing, to ensure smooth operations.

He criticises the Bill as part of a broader strategy to centralise power with the Executive at the expense of Parliament. He warns that clause 1 gives more power to the Executive, strips parliamentarians of their powers and denies the judiciary the ability to scrutinise government actions. O'Hara also notes that passing the bill without new clause 2 will give the Prime Minister full control over Dissolution of Parliament.

Intervenes to warn about the potential for the Bill to shift dates of Scottish referendums in favour of UK general elections, giving a gross power to the UK Government.

Asks Nigel Evans to consider the irony of Conservative Members advocating for Brexit and then voting against Parliament's powers. He expresses perplexity at this contradiction.

Supports the Bill as a welcome correction to the constitution, returning it to its fundamental principle. He also suggests that this should not be the last measure introduced in the constitutional portfolio and expresses a hope for more radical changes.

Welcomes the Bill but supports new clause 1 which aims to shorten the period between elections. Argues that long election periods can lead to voter fatigue and delays in resolving political tensions.

[Intervention] Challenges the assertion made by Aaron Bell regarding the need for shorter election periods, suggesting that a balance is needed to avoid voter fatigue without overly shortening important democratic processes.

Supports amendments to prevent simultaneous elections, emphasising concerns over voter engagement, confusion between tiers of government, and the possibility of political manipulation.

Intervened to support Jonathan Edwards's point about the risk of using UK elections to manipulate dates for referendums or other national elections, highlighting a potential power grab.

Argued against new clause 2, supporting the Government's position to restore prerogative powers for dissolving Parliament. Suggested that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act undermined trust and caused parliamentary paralysis.

Welcomed the bill and intends to support it for reversing the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act. Argued that elections are important occasions but can lead to election fatigue, especially in long campaigns. Opposed new clause 2 as it would allow Parliament to hold government to ransom instead of Prime Minister making decisions within five-year period.

Asked questions about consequences of the bill on referendums and elections. Concerned that the Prime Minister alone would know election dates, affecting parties' ability to campaign effectively. Suggested a piecemeal approach undermines democratic protections.

Moved that clauses should stand part of the bill, argued that dialogue on conventions would continue. Noted research and discussions with devolved Administrations.

Believed the Bill should have been amended in Committee, arguing it hands power to the Executive and benefits government's electoral advantage. Noted that while the Fixed-term Parliaments Act was flawed, Labour committed to repealing but will abstain due to lack of improvements.

Expressed gratitude towards Minister for work during bill's passage and look forward to discussing research on election length.

He criticises the Fixed-term Parliaments Act (No. 2) Bill as a negative piece of legislation that seeks to revert to an outdated system from over a decade ago. O'Hara argues that the bill is an attempt by the Executive to consolidate more power at the expense of Parliament, and he views this alongside other measures as an assault on democracy. He expresses scepticism about whether it's even plausible to negate the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 retrospectively.