Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Stephen Pound (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 16 November 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Fixed-term Parliaments Bill.


Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Amendment 11 addresses these points. The reality is that if we had a fixed-term Parliament—I appreciate I am arguing for a fourth year rather than a fifth year—what dreadful temptations would come the way of susceptible politicians? Legislation would be front-loaded, knowing that there was never the possibility of an early election by which they might be made accountable to the people. I appreciate that clause 1 may be influenced by future legislation on recalls. We could find ourselves with so many recall petitions that we in fact have a new Parliament in the middle. There are certain aspects in the Bill later—not specifically relevant to clause 1, before you mention it, Miss Begg—which refer to the power to dissolve. But the most important, most salient point here is that if we locked the system into a four-year or five-year cycle, we would lose that glorious uncertainty of the democratic oversight. We would lose that concern, may I say, even, on occasion, that fear of the electorate, which is the honest emotion that parliamentarians should always feel.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
518 c835-6 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Devolved matters Administration Legislatures General elections Fixed-term parliaments Dissolution Northern Ireland Northern Ireland Assembly National Assembly for Wales Parliament Scotland Wales Scottish Parliament
Legislation
Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk