Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Daniel Byles (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 18 January 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Fixed-term Parliaments Bill.


Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I am extremely concerned about that point, and very eager to get on to the part of my speech in which I shall address it. However, I want to conclude the point, which I was pulled on to by interventions, about whether the term should be fixed at four years or five. I turn again to the conclusions and recommendations in the report on the Bill produced by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, which has already been quoted today by Labour Members. Recommendation 5 clearly states:"““Precedent gives no clear answer as to whether Parliaments should last four years or five.””" In recommendation 6 the report acknowledges the views expressed by some witnesses that four years might be better than five. Nevertheless, the recommendation clearly states that that"““is an important point, but not one that we would wish to see obstruct the passage of the Bill through the House.””" That is important, and I hope that Labour Members will take note of it. Before moving on to the subject of the amendments before the House, I would like briefly to—


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
521 c758 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Administration General elections Fixed-term parliaments Dissolution Censure motions Prorogation Sunset clauses
Legislation
Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 2010-12
Parliament Act 1911
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk