Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Alec Shelbrooke and Austin Mitchell

Tuesday 16th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

On the specific point that it is always a failing Government who go the five years and cling to power until the last before leaving, I recall that the 1987 to 1992 period resulted in the same party being returned.

[Austin Mitchell]

I am baffled—I mentioned Governments in a mess and a Government Member stands up to tell me that the mess was bigger than I thought it was. Is that the point he is making? My point is quite simple. There are deeply unpopular Governments—Governments in such a state as this Government have reduced themselves to in six short months—who hang on to power.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

The hon. Gentleman refers to a Government reduced to the state that this Government are in. They are easy words, but will he clarify his comments?

--- Later in debate ---

[Austin Mitchell]

It says up to five years, and the Government are seeking to make five years the compulsory length of a term, so far as they can entrench that in the constitution. Had the hon. Lady heard the preceding debate, she would have realised that, historically, most Governments have gone to the country before their five years were up.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

That is all very well and good, but the hon. Gentleman is overlooking the fact that, for the first time, Parliament, and not the Prime Minister, will have the power to dissolve Parliament.

[Austin Mitchell]

Parliament will have the power to dissolve Parliament on a two-thirds vote, I think, in this ludicrous legislation, so I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I am saying that we should legislate for three-year Parliaments, which would be sensible, and I am asking where the five-year term has come from. How did it come into the heads of this Government? Did it spring fully armed from the head of the Prime Minister?