Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from David Howarth (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Friday, 16 May 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Fixed Term Parliaments Bill.


Fixed Term Parliaments Bill

That is a very interesting point, which had not occurred to me. My view in favour of May is strengthening as time passes, although I am not tied to these particular details. Another such detail is whether the term should last four years or five. Some countries have five-year Parliaments; the European Parliament has such a term. The principle is for there to be a fixed term, not that it should particularly be for one period or another. Finally, I wish to touch on the escape clause—the break clause. Avid readers of the Bill will have noticed that it contains no such clause, although there is an implied one. The implied escape clause is that if it was generally thought desirable for there to be an election, because it was the only way to break a political deadlock, it would of course be possible to pass an amending Act. Passing such an Act would simply say, ““There shall be a general election, notwithstanding what the Fixed Term Parliaments Bill says.”” Such an approach is always possible under our system, which does not have a written constitution. The break clause means that there would have to be more general political consensus—not only here, but in the other place—that there should be an election than simply what the Government of the day believe.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
475 c1708 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Campaigns British constitution Elections General elections Government Dissolution Political parties Parliament Manifestos Recall of parliament Reform Royal prerogative Labour Censure motions
Legislation
Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk