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
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 15:05:34 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_726336
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_726336
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_726336