Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Pannick (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 15 March 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill on Fixed-term Parliaments Bill.


Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Before the Minister responds, I should like to add my response to these amendments and, indeed, to so many of the thoughtful amendments to Clause 1 that have been tabled. They tinker with a fundamentally misconceived concept of a fixed-term Parliament, as was explained by so many of your Lordships at Second Reading. As we have already debated this afternoon, Clause 1 is driven by the short-term political considerations of the coalition and will reduce the effective power of the electorate to have their say about those who govern them. I am coming to the view that the correct approach is for this House to agree that this Parliament should last for five years—that will deal perfectly adequately with the short-term political needs of this Government—but refuse to accept that we should legislate for any future Parliament. After this Parliament, the normal, traditional procedures, which have worked very well, should continue. I very much hope that on Report we can decide that that should be the case.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
726 c220 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Absent voting Devolution Elections Legislatures Fixed-term parliaments Dissolution Northern Ireland Referendums Parliament Scotland Voting behaviour Religion Wales
Legislation
Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk