Skip to main content

1-20 of 29 results for subject:Dissolution

Member X
Daniel Byles

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

More
Byles, Daniel (29)

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. Again he demonstrates why it is so important to maintain a thorough understanding of history if we are to understand exactly what our position in this place is in the context—

Member
Daniel Byles (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
18 January 2011
Reference
521 c760
House
House of Commons

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.

Member
Daniel Byles (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
18 January 2011
Reference
521 c760
House
House of Commons

I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I apologise. [Interruption.]

Member
Daniel Byles (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
18 January 2011
Reference
521 c759
House
House of Commons

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I shall move on to new clause 4, which sets out new rules for the prorogation—I have as much trouble as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) with that word—of Parliament and would repeal the Prorogation Act 1867, which provides the power...

Member
Daniel Byles (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
18 January 2011
Reference
521 c759-60
House
House of Commons

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for joining our discussion of the history pertaining to prorogation. I am glad that he has recognised that understanding the history of how we have got to where we are today is relevant to the discussion at hand. However, as the House...

Member
Daniel Byles (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
18 January 2011
Reference
521 c760-1
House
House of Commons

It pains me wholeheartedly to agree with my hon. Friend that that is absolutely the case.

Member
Daniel Byles (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
18 January 2011
Reference
521 c760
House
House of Commons

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting argument, because he seems to suggest that any Government of the day should have such a strong majority that they can bash their legislation through. I believe that Labour Members referred to that arrangement as an elective dictatorship when they were on the wrong...

Member
Daniel Byles (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
18 January 2011
Reference
521 c756-7
House
House of Commons

I do not understand my hon. Friend's point at all. Our forefathers decided that five years was a reasonable maximum length for a Parliament.

Member
Daniel Byles (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
18 January 2011
Reference
521 c756
House
House of Commons

The hon. Gentleman has advanced that argument before, but I am aware that another interpretation is that if a Parliament lasts five years, only about four years' work gets done in practice, because Governments find it harder to get their business through in the final year as people are looking...

Member
Daniel Byles (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
18 January 2011
Reference
521 c756
House
House of Commons

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) likes to cite a figure of 3.7 years as the average length of a Parliament since 1945—he does not need to jump up and do so again now—but we need to tackle that statistic head on,...

Member
Daniel Byles (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
18 January 2011
Reference
521 c756
House
House of Commons

I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have almost come to the end of my scene-setting remarks and will get into considerably more detail on the amendments very shortly. Before I do, I want to refer to confidence votes and thresholds, which have already been mentioned this afternoon,...

Member
Daniel Byles (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
18 January 2011
Reference
521 c758-9
House
House of Commons

If the hon. Gentleman is arguing that Parliaments that last for five years are more likely to end with the defeat of the Government, he should be wholeheartedly embracing the coalition's plans to make this Parliament last for five years. If there is something so constitutionally or democratically wrong with...

Member
Daniel Byles (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
18 January 2011
Reference
521 c757
House
House of Commons

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,...

Member
Daniel Byles (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
18 January 2011
Reference
521 c758
House
House of Commons

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's comments. One problem sometimes cited in relation to a democratic system such as ours is the tendency for Governments to take the short-term approach to fixing problems. If five years became the norm, that would help to create slightly more stable government, because...

Member
Daniel Byles (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
18 January 2011
Reference
521 c758
House
House of Commons

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. That is exactly the point that I would have made. The Bill is truly historic. That fact has been mentioned by numerous Members on both sides of the House, and to consider it in isolation—what it means to us...

Member
Daniel Byles (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
18 January 2011
Reference
521 c760
House
House of Commons

I genuinely do not believe that that is the reason. My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) pointed out that three of the last five Parliaments lasted five years, and I was developing a point about the average length of post-1945 Parliaments. If the three failed...

Member
Daniel Byles (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
18 January 2011
Reference
521 c757
House
House of Commons

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important discussion. The entire issue of fixed-term Parliaments, sadly, is in danger of becoming yet another political football to be kicked around the House, as Members seek to manufacture objections to reform, and to posture and grandstand. I fear that...

Member
Daniel Byles (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
18 January 2011
Reference
521 c753
House
House of Commons

The House has faced a big problem with fundraising and the increasing cost of democracy. Would not longer election campaigns lead to more expense and a greater requirement for parties to raise funds? We all know that parties get into trouble however they try to raise funds, so is this...

Member
Daniel Byles (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
18 January 2011
Reference
521 c748
House
House of Commons

Is not the very purpose behind the Bill and the cooling-off period after a vote of no confidence precisely to allow that to happen? The expectation would not be that Her Majesty or His Majesty would interfere in the political process. Under the Bill, such a situation would throw the...

Member
Daniel Byles (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
18 January 2011
Reference
521 c744
House
House of Commons

It is a slightly odd idea that we could have a vote of no confidence and that somebody from the governing party might take up the reins. Any party that had a vote of no confidence rather than a leadership challenge to change their leader would be highly irresponsible.

Member
Daniel Byles (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
18 January 2011
Reference
521 c745
House
House of Commons