House of Commons · Bill Debate
14 March 2022 · 18 other contributors
Opened by Michael Ellis Con Newton Abbot
Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.
Michael Ellis raised concerns about fixed-term parliaments bill - clause 2 in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
Key points
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.
Opened the debate
The amendment seeks to retain a role for the House of Commons in respect of Dissolution, which would undermine the flexibility that characterised pre-2011 arrangements. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act should be repealed entirely, as it led to paralysis and propped up weak governments. A statutory scheme could create unnecessary delay and expense, especially during gridlocked periods. Returning to a proven system is crucial for avoiding future issues like those seen in 2019.
He argues that the amendment undermines flexibility and creates unnecessary complexity, while also failing to address critical questions of implementation. The pre-2011 system worked well for generations and should be restored.
Intervened to express relief that the Minister opposes the amendment, emphasising the chaos caused by the old system during periods of political instability.
Asked if dismissing the Lords amendment would ensure that courts do not have a role in fixing election dates, highlighting the importance of avoiding judicial involvement in such matters.
Questioned how the Prime Minister of a minority Government could dissolve Parliament if there was potential for another government to be formed, raising concerns about clarity and consistency in the proposed amendment.
Expressed disbelief at some opposition to the current position, citing public frustration during periods of political deadlock as evidence for maintaining the status quo.
Suggested that looking back on past events like 2019 and 2010 is unproductive, emphasising the need for a flexible constitution capable of adapting to unique circumstances.
Challenged the Minister's consistency by pointing out that he appears to be doing the opposite of what his colleague suggested regarding past events and their impact on current decisions.
Referenced the Lascelles principles, seeking clarity on whether they still form part of the Cabinet manual and how they relate to proposed changes in the Bill.
I support the Lords amendment, which requires a parliamentary majority for Dissolution. This is necessary to prevent an overbearing Executive from acting in self-interest without parliamentary consent. It also addresses electoral fairness and ensures that any decision on Dissolution cannot be challenged as it will be settled by a vote in Parliament.
Concerned about potential abuse of power, similar to previous instances. The Lords amendment would provide protection against such abuses and maintain parliamentary sovereignty.
Argues against the Lords amendment, stating it is a politically expedient measure that undermines parliamentary sovereignty. Emphasises the need for constitutional release valve through general elections to avoid logjam and mistrust.
Supports the Lords amendment requiring Commons approval for early Dissolution and election. Criticises the Government's position as surrendering control to the Executive and undermining parliamentary sovereignty.
Mr. Redwood supports giving the Prime Minister more power to call early elections when a minority Government is struggling to govern effectively. He criticises those who oppose this, suggesting they misunderstand democracy and fear public judgment.
Mr. Bryant questions the need for additional checks on government power, arguing that current provisions are sufficient to prevent misuse by Prime Ministers who might lie to the monarch about dissolving Parliament. He expresses concerns over involving the monarch in political decisions and emphasises the importance of parliamentary democracy.
Argues that the Lords amendment does not address the issue of 'zombie' Parliaments and could allow Opposition parties to delay elections for political gain. He cites historical examples where Governments misread election timing, suggesting that giving a Government power to call an election is a double-edged sword.
States her support for a more flexible and romantic view of the unwritten constitution rather than codifying it further. Regrets the need to debate this issue but sees the amendment as an alternative to the ouster clause, which she opposes.
Sees rejecting the Lords amendment as a power grab by the Executive at the expense of Parliament and public confidence. Believes it undermines the Union and increases divergence on the islands, supporting devolved institutions' democracies.
Agrees with Jackie Doyle-Price's romantic view of the constitution but argues that the Lords amendment is a wrecking amendment that undermines democracy. Calls for returning power to the people and protecting the sovereign from political involvement.