Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Nick Clegg (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Monday, 13 September 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill on Fixed-term Parliaments Bill.


Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

I am not entirely sure whether that last assertion is correct. The hon. Gentleman wants to give the House a history lesson, so perhaps I may refer him to the Parliament Act 1911, which introduced the current five-year maximum. The then Prime Minister, Herbert Asquith, told the House that five years would"““probably amount in practice to an actual legislative working term of four years””—[Official Report, 21 February 1911; Vol. 21, c. 1749.]" That is a quote that I picked up from the Committee's report, rightly pointing out that when a Parliament is expected to last for only four years, as is now the case, it very often ends up, in effect, a three-year Parliament. So our view is that by fixing the cycle at five years, we help to mitigate—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says that that is a ridiculous decision. He knows as well as anybody else that for 12 or 18 months before an election is held, work in the House is blighted by all the parties politicking in advance of polling day. Therefore, if we want Governments to govern for the long term, we think five years is the right period of time.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
515 c625 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Alternative vote General elections Fixed-term parliaments Dissolution National Assembly for Wales Referendums Parliament Parliamentary privilege Parliamentary session Reform Scottish Parliament Royal prerogative Censure motions
Legislation
Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk