Fixed-term Parliaments Bill Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Cabinet Office

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Baroness Primarolo Excerpts
Tuesday 16th November 2010

(14 years ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Neil Carmichael Portrait Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I note my hon. Friend’s observations about America. Of course, its terms really are fixed: the Senate cannot alter its six years, the President cannot alter his four years and Congress cannot alter its two years. What we are saying, which is consistent with the Parliament Act 1911, is that five years would be the expected norm. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) notes, at least two mechanisms could bring an end to a Parliament should this House decide, so we are stopping the Prime Minister from having an election early for expedient purposes. Instead, we are saying that there should be a five-year term, as suggested in 1911 and as used by several Parliaments afterwards—

Baroness Primarolo Portrait The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)
- Hansard - -

Order. Interventions are supposed to be brief. I think that Mr Shepherd has got the gist of the point.

--- Later in debate ---
Austin Mitchell Portrait Austin Mitchell
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

In fact, they created the—

Baroness Primarolo Portrait The Second Deputy Chairman
- Hansard - -

Order. First, it is not necessary for the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) to wave—he simply has to stand up. Secondly, can we stay within the scope of the amendments? I think the Attlee Government might be a little wide of them.

Austin Mitchell Portrait Austin Mitchell
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The second Attlee Government lasted from 1950 to 1951. However, that was an attempt to detour me and I do not want to be detoured down all the happy little roads that Government Members would rather turn us into.

I think that four years is perfectly acceptable. It would be good and I would be happy to support—indeed, I will support—that amendment. Three years would be better. It is not a downward option—it is not like the old programme that Yorkshire Television used to do, so that we go five, four, “3-2-1”. I will not go as low as the Chartists’ demand for annual Parliaments; I am staying at three. Around the world, a pattern can be seen—the more democratic the society and the polity, the more frequent and regular are the elections. I would put at the head of that democratic tree Australia and New Zealand, which have three-year Parliaments that work happily. I used to write about New Zealand that if there was a seizure of power by the Chinese Communists, New Zealanders would still be standing outside the polls in November of every third year ready to vote because they have the conditioned habit of voting. It is a good conditioned habit and three years is a good term.