Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Nick Boles (Conservative) 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 have always found it easy to disagree with academics on almost any subject, and I disagree with Professor Blackburn on that. My hon. Friend's question leads me neatly to my next point. With much more trepidation, I have to say that I respectfully disagree with what the Clerk of the House said in his contribution to our evidence about the risks posed by the Bill. I recognise that I am probably the least qualified person here to comment on orders of this House, and on the risks of judicial review that the proposed statute might create, because I am not a lawyer, a long-standing MP or a constitutional historian. However, it seemed inadequate for the Clerk of the House to suggest putting this fundamental provision into the statutes of the House—the orders of the House, as I believe they are called—because surely the House can do away with those orders on a relative whim. The one advantage of the statute that the Government are proposing is that it will have to make its way through the other House. Any further changes will also therefore have to make their way through the other House, and we have a commitment from the Deputy Prime Minister that we will see full-scale reform of that other House before the next election, to which the Bill would apply.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
515 c692 
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