Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Austin Mitchell Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The reform of the other place will be a matter of great interest, although it is worth bearing in mind that the 1911 Act specifically states that it is to be in place only until the other place is reformed. When that time comes, this House will no doubt want to bear in mind how that Act can be reformed in response to the reform, depending on what is done to the other House. Some hon. and right hon. Members, and indeed some hon. and right hon. Friends, might be concerned about the powers that this House would lose if the 1911 Act were reformed wholesale.

New clause 3 has another important purpose. Lord Justice Laws, in the Thoburn case, which was well known in the popular press as the metric martyrs case, developed a doctrine of constitutional laws, in which he included devolution to Scotland. He would no doubt also regard an independence Act, too, as a constitutional law, which will be of interest to the hon. Gentleman who represents the Western Isles—I am afraid that I must still pronounce it as such, but I hope to learn. The European Communities Act 1972 is viewed as a constitutional Act, as is the Bill of Rights. Lord Justice Laws argued that those have a special place in the legal hierarchy and cannot be amended by implication. That means that they cannot be impliedly repealed, but only specifically repealed. That was quite a constitutional leap and a novel concept, but one that I think Governments have found useful, because it eases their path when changing other laws.

If we have developed this new view of constitutional laws that are superior laws—a sort of law greater than the ordinary Bills that this House and the other place pass—it seems to me that it would be better if that were decided by Parliament, rather than by the courts at a later date. That is one thing that the new clause would at least indicate. It would say that a Bill is so important and relevant, because it will determine how elections will be carried out, that it cannot be amended except with specific approval. Clearly, it would therefore be difficult for it to be impliedly repealed.

That brings me to the nub of the matter, and of the new clause. Constitutional change is the most important duty of this House, because when we change the cycle of election we change it in a way that means that we could have very different Governments. Just think what might have happened if we had had a general election in 2007. Who might have won if that had been the electoral cycle?

The right to an election is the fundamental right of the British people, with their democratic ability to decide who forms the Government, so can it possibly be right for one Government to come in and say of a Parliament, “It’ll be five years,” the next to come in and say, “Oh, actually, four years would be better,” and the one after that to say “Six,” which would still be covered by the exemption from the Parliament Acts, and to play around with the constitution—with the democratic rights of the British people—in a way that involves no checks on them and no ability to say that that is now the settled will of Parliament and of the British people?

I think that in the House of Lords, as it currently is or in any reform of it, we have absolutely the right body to say, as the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) suggested, “Hold on. You did not have this in a manifesto. This is an inappropriate way of changing our constitution, without the consent of the British people and without a referendum, which might be a better way of doing it, so we are blocking you until you have had a referendum—until some big constitutional result has been found.” The Lords have done that before.

The House of Lords has been a block on constitutional reform, and that is a good thing. Some hon. Members might think that a peculiar thing to say, but it means that reform is properly thought through and developed. I am not going to go back to the exclusion crisis and Lord Halifax’s wonderful speech to prevent the Exclusion Bill going through, but that was a very early example of the House of Lords taking a strong constitutional stance, protecting the rights of an hereditary monarchy to follow the correct path and—the bonus from my point of view—being very pro-Catholic. Certainly, however, before 1832 the House of Lords blocked every reform, and it did so until it was clear that the whole of the British people wanted such reform to take place. Indeed, the Duke of Wellington realised that for the King’s Government to carry on, reform had to take place. After he put metal shutters in Apsley house because of the riots that had occurred, he knew that reform had to take place.

In 1911 even Lord Curzon eventually decided that the reform Bill had to go through, rather than having the House of Lords flooded with a whole new batch of peers who would have pushed it through—[Interruption.] They were Liberal peers. Most of them, however, become Conservative over the generations; it is the great advantage of the hereditary system. The Bill was deeply opposed. Lord Willoughby de Broke was one of the great leaders of the opposition to that reform, and the House of Lords has had that job and done it extraordinarily well, making sure that our constitution changes not as it has done in recent years—which is a grave error—according to the will of a small clique in Downing street, but because within it there has been some important flaw that, with the support of the whole British nation, has needed improving.

I do not think that my new clause will make this Bill perfect, because one cannot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, but it would at least make this sow’s ear one that could not be chopped up into sausages.

[Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

Is not the hon. Gentleman’s panegyric on the House of Lords, and its great ability to defend our constitution by ensuring further discussion, really dedicated to defending the interests of the Conservative party?

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I think that I am defending just as much the interests of the socialists of Great Grimsby and other places, because it is not in the interest of the voters of Great Grimsby to have Governments who come in and play fast and loose with the constitution; that is a really bad idea. The hon. Gentleman has been a most distinguished advocate of less European intrusion in our affairs. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] As is obvious, he has the respect of the whole House for that, but Governments have been able to play fast and loose with our constitution in a European context because there has been no check from the upper House, and because anything, ultimately, can be jammed through under the Parliament Act 1911.

With this Bill, I want to begin to say—I have proposed the same change to the European Union Bill before the House—that such important constitutional changes need much deeper and broader support than that of some, to use the late Sir Robin Day’s term, “here today, gone tomorrow” politicians. We need constitutional change that is in the historic continuum of our great nation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Cash]

Oh, I see. I am extremely grateful to hear what the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), that fierce defender of British liberty—when it suits him—has to say. In the light of what my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) has said, it would not cause me any concern if my new clause were passed simply because it would require a rethink, when there would be a completely new situation. Does my hon. Friend want to intervene again on that? No.

[Austin Mitchell]

The hon. Gentleman should not lack confidence about his ability to rally this House behind an important measure. Let me ask, since no Parliament can bind its successor, are not both the Bill and his new clause otiose because a new Parliament will simply wipe the plate, and if it wants to dissolve early, it will do so?

[Mr Cash]

That is a noble aspiration, but I am not at all convinced that that is how it is intended to operate in practice, mainly because there are other people involved who are called Whips. Unless provision has been made for expiry, there will be a natural locomotion towards a future coalition, which I strongly resent, and towards fixed-term Parliaments, in the plural, and we will be in “a new kind of politics”. I see in their places at least one or two of my hon. Friends who, from what we read, would strongly advocate such a proposal. They have some constitutional ideas so perhaps they will elaborate on them during the debate. I rather doubt it, but we shall see.

New clause 5 is designed so that section 2 of the eventual Act will expire. It also provides for the circumstances that might obtain in the first month after Parliament has returned after a general election, when it might have a totally different complexion and composition. We have no idea who will be sitting on the Government Benches at that time. In that first month with Members reconvened for the first time—leaving aside the constitutional doctrine about successive Parliaments—would it be right for those Members to be saddled with something with which they did not agree? It is a simple as that. That provides another reason, quite apart from the constitutionality of the issue, for the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

We were in favour of fixed-term Parliaments above and beyond all else, and always accepted that the issue of whether it was four years or five years was a matter of judgment, as I said. Five years, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is the maximum term available to us already, and of the last five Parliaments three stretched to five years, including the last Parliament under a Labour Government.

[Austin Mitchell]

But the judgment of the Liberal party was that four years was the appropriate length of a Parliament. That is what was in the Liberals’ manifesto and what they put up to the Labour side in the coalition negotiations. They asked for four years and election by single transferable vote. Why suddenly switch to five?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As I said, the principle of a fixed-term Parliament was by far the most important thing. Whether that is four or five years—some people argue for five, some argue for four—might divide opinion and might create synthetic objections from those on the Labour Benches, but it is none the less secondary to the principle of giving the House greater power over the Executive. That is what the Bill establishes. Personally, I would not fetishise about 12 months one way or another in a term of four or five years. We have decided in the coalition agreement and as a Government—[Interruption.] It is a decision from the Government. I know that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) finds it deeply uncomfortable not to be in government. He is not. We are, and we have decided five years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Austin Mitchell]

It was interesting to hear the Deputy Prime Minister present as a great constitutional innovation what is in fact a sordid little Bill, which is intended to keep the coalition clinging together for five years in the hope that that will be long enough for the Liberal Democrats to extract some concessions from the Conservatives as a reward for joining the coalition.

Sadly, this brings to mind an image from the Brazil floods that many of us saw on television last week. A poor lady was on the roof of her house clutching a dog—the poor lady representing the Conservative party, and the dog representing the Liberal Democrats. The lady was being winched up by a helicopter, while the dog was being washed away. That is the end of the story. The woman was saved, as the Conservative party will be by this measure, but the Liberal Democrat dog was washed away into the waters.

The Opposition have tried to amend and improve the Bill. We have tried to remove some of its faults. In particular, we have tried to reduce the term involved, or rather to prevent a five-year term from becoming the norm—for although the Deputy Prime Minister has described five years as the norm, it is not; it is the exception.

It has been said that this is a genius of a Bill because it prevents Prime Ministers from manipulating the economy, or manipulating politics, in order to be returned to office. That happened in the 1950s and 1960s, at a time when Prime Ministers could manipulate the economy. Now the economy manipulates Prime Ministers. When we examine the record of past Prime Ministers, it is interesting to note how many of them made timing mistakes that lost them elections. Let me list them. Wilson in 1970: mistaken timing. Heath in 1974: mistaken timing. It was either three weeks too late or three months too early. Callaghan in 1979: mistaken timing. He should have gone for it in 1978. Then there was one called Brown who should have gone for it in 2007, but, as was mentioned earlier, he made the mistake of outstaying his welcome.

That is what the coalition will do by extending the length of this Parliament. The fact is that the people want us to be kept on a shorter leash, and shorter Parliaments provide the most effective way of ensuring that that happens. They ensure that we remain accountable, that we present ourselves to the electorate, and that we are open to re-election. I think that a three-year Parliament, like that adopted by Australia and New Zealand, would be far more sensible, and would accord more with the public mood. [Interruption.] Forget 1984; I have already.

Let me end—because I want to be brief—by saying that the Bill is an attempt to keep the coalition in power through manipulation. I think that the coalition will find in five years that by trying to stay in power and by manipulating the electoral system through the loss of 50 Members—which the Deputy Prime Minister presumably thinks will weaken the Executive—it has outstayed its welcome. That is certainly what happened to us—and indeed, the coalition has outstayed its welcome already.