(13 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberWhat you do here is you have a Bill for fixed-term Parliaments, you see how it works and, if it works, you determine whether, as a Parliament, you should continue with it.
Can he answer the points made by my noble friend Lord Marks, in particular those relating to the Parliament Act and the lapse in the schedule?
With respect, the Parliament Act is a total red herring. The noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, says that by allowing the decision to depend on a resolution of both Houses, we—Parliament—are giving the power back to a Government with a majority. Of course we are, but we are doing that anyway because they could pass a repealing Act. Surely it must be right for this House to express its disapproval of the way that the Bill has been brought forward by supporting the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd and the noble Lords, Lord Butler and Lord Armstrong, and to say, “Yes, you can have your Bill, but let us see whether or not a major constitutional change like this—which is very much an insider’s Bill—works, let us see whether or not it is something worth continuing and let the next Parliament decide”.