---

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

As a Member who came in on the wave of opinion produced by the Chartists—it seems so long ago—I will not go to the extreme of saying that we should have annual Parliaments, but the American House of Representatives is elected every two years; there is a radical proposal. I am being very moderate. Let us have three-yearly elections as we used to have in the 17th century and as they have in Australia and New Zealand. I have spent a long time in New Zealand lecturing in political science and praising the three-year term, which works very well. The virtue of a three-year term is that it keeps Parliament in close touch with the people. We all remember the explosion of misunderstanding that hit us recently—the alienation, apathy and demands that we should get in touch with the people. We had inured ourselves in the Westminster bubble or glasshouse and people had to throw stones at the glass to break into us. We were out of touch with the people. That was the massive cry that we heard last year and in the election this year. In Grimsby, when I go down to the docks or around the houses, people say, ““It's lovely to see you; you come so often—you shouldn't trouble yourself to come as much as you do,”” but other Members have told me that when they go canvassing, people say, ““Oh, you only come when there's an election. There must be an election, because we never see you between elections.”” That was part of the explosion of mistrust between the people and Parliament that occurred last year. How do we get around that problem? The Power report, three years back, indicated the massive degree of alienation, the massive misunderstanding and ignorance about politics and the massive mistrust of politicians. People think that politicians are in politics only to further their own ends and to enrich themselves. How do we get around that? We can get do so by bringing ourselves into closer touch with the people through triennial elections, as works well in New Zealand. There is no more effective way of keeping a Government under control, seeing that the Government serve the causes of the people and seeing that MPs work for the people—that we do our duty in our constituencies—than having three-year Parliaments. That is what we need. I will not go on; I have only a couple more points to make. The measure has been described as binding but of course it is not. An extension of the parliamentary term could easily be repealed by the next Parliament because Parliament cannot bind itself. Indeed, it could be amended in this Parliament—if the Liberal Democrats do want to break away at some stage they could bear that in mind. The measure does not abolish the Prime Minister's power. There is the example of what Schröder did in Germany in 2005. He arranged a vote of confidence, told his Ministers not to support the Government and was defeated so that he could have an election. That case went to the constitutional court to decide whether it was legal. There could be a similar situation here, with, as the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) has said, MPs from the Back Benches being sent on lovely trips to the Seychelles, so those safeguards do not apply. The main point is that we have an opportunity to bring ourselves closer to the people. We should ratify and accept the power that they wanted. There was alienation in 2009 and 2010. Let us get close to the people; let us have triennial Parliaments.