Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between George Howarth and Austin Mitchell

Monday 13th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

Here we are in the second week of the great Liberal Democrat benefit sitting with a measure that is even sillier than the ones we brought in during the first week, with another fix from the gerrymander unit at Cowley street—I do not know why they do not just call it Tammany hall and have done with it—to try to fix the constitution to keep the coalition in power.

We have all been dreadfully mealy-mouthed about this measure, saying that it is a constitutional measure and that we should consider it seriously and make changes, but we are kidding ourselves. It is not a constitutional measure at all. It is a post-nuptial contract. Here we have two parties in a loveless shotgun marriage that do not really trust each other, so they are bringing in a Bill to make divorce more difficult. That is what it is all about.

The hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) spoke about building trust, but the whole point of this Bill is that they do not trust each other. The Liberal Democrats do not trust the Conservatives—they fear that they will be dumped when they have made themselves sufficiently unpopular by betraying all their principles, all their friends and all their supporters—whereas the Conservatives are afraid that the Liberal Democrats will get cold feet and pull the plug on the coalition because they cannot stand the heat of the cuts, because the alternative vote is defeated leaving them with nothing left to show for the thing or because they want to stop redistribution. Because of that lack of trust, we get this rather silly and unnecessary Bill, and I certainly hope to vote against it tonight.

The leader of the Liberal Democrats said that we could be absolutely confident that the courts would not be able to interfere, in the same way as he told us that we could be absolutely confident that the cuts would not damage the poor and would not hurt the north. He said that we could have absolute confidence in all that but I am ceasing to have any confidence in the Deputy Prime Minister and his declarations of absolute confidence. The simple point about the courts intervening is that we do not have in the Bill a definition of a vote of confidence. What is a vote of confidence? The courts could well rule on that. As it has to be certified by the Speaker, the courts could rule on the question of whether the certificate is valid. Most importantly, I am against the Bill because it extends the life of a Parliament. That is the exact opposite of what we need to do.

The average Parliament lasts about four years and has done so since the war. It has lasted for three years and eight months if we date it from 1832. Four years was the period envisaged by Asquith when the Septennial Act 1715 was repealed by the Parliament Act 1911. Four years was the period in the Liberal Democrat agenda. The policy paper for the 2007 conference, “For the People, By the People”, argued:

“Liberal Democrats have long argued that parliaments should last for a fixed term of four years.”

There we are—that is a clear statement. I ask the Liberal Democrats if there is any principle they are not prepared to betray. They have already betrayed their preference for proportional representation in favour of the alternative vote and now they are betraying their preference for four-year Parliaments.

Four years was also the term that the Labour party envisaged when it was in our manifesto, although I must admit that I did not read it; I did not even remember that it was in our manifesto. I do not read much of the manifestos but as it was in one, we should have some deference for that, I suppose. Why should we extend the term to five years? Is it because the Government are so afraid that the vandalism that they are doing to the benefit system, with the cuts to welfare, and to the economy will make them so unpopular that they will have to sit things out for five years? Is it because they will not be able to face the people before then? That is the only reason I can think of for extending it to five years.

I would like parliamentary terms to be reduced not to four years, which seems to be the opinion of the wiseacres, but to three. We should contract the terms and have triennial Parliaments as was the case at the end of the 17th century before they were extended to seven years.

[Mr George Howarth]

Does my hon. Friend recall that in the mid-19th century, one of the Chartist demands was for annual Parliaments?

[Austin Mitchell]

As a Member who came in on the wave of opinion produced by the Chartists—it seems that long ago—I will not go to the extreme of saying that we should have annual Parliaments, but the American House of Representatives is elected every two years; there is a radical proposal. I am being very moderate. Let us have three-yearly elections as we used to have in the 17th century and as they have in Australia and New Zealand. I have spent a long time in New Zealand lecturing in political science and praising the three-year term, which works very well. The virtue of a three-year term is that it keeps Parliament in close touch with the people.

We all remember the explosion of misunderstanding that hit us recently—the alienation, apathy and demands that we should get in touch with the people. We had immured ourselves in the Westminster bubble or glasshouse and people had to throw stones at the glass to break in to us. We were out of touch with the people. That was the massive cry that we heard last year and in the election this year. In Grimsby, when I go down to the docks or around the houses, people say, “It’s lovely to see you; you come so often—you shouldn’t trouble yourself to come as much as you do,” but other Members have told me that when they go canvassing, people say, “Oh, you only come when there’s an election. There must be an election, because we never see you between elections.” That was part of the explosion of mistrust between the people and Parliament that occurred last year.

How do we get around that problem? The Power report, three years back, indicated the massive degree of alienation, the massive misunderstanding and ignorance about politics and the massive mistrust of politicians. People think that politicians are in politics only to further their own ends and to enrich themselves. How do we get around that? We can do so by bringing ourselves into closer touch with the people through triennial elections, as works well in New Zealand. There is no more effective way of keeping a Government under control, ensuring that the Government serve the causes of the people and that MPs work for the people—that we do our duty in our constituencies—than having three-year Parliaments. That is what we need.

I will not go on; I have only a couple more points to make. The measure has been described as binding, but of course it is not. An extension of the parliamentary term could easily be repealed by the next Parliament because Parliament cannot bind itself. Indeed, it could be amended in this Parliament—if the Liberal Democrats do want to break away at some stage they could bear that in mind. The measure does not abolish the Prime Minister’s power. There is the example of what Schröder did in Germany in 2005. He arranged a vote of confidence, told his Ministers not to support the Government and was defeated so that he could have an election. That case went to the constitutional court to decide whether it was legal. There could be a similar situation here, with, as the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) has said, MPs from the Back Benches being sent on lovely trips to the Seychelles, so those safeguards do not apply.

The main point is that we have an opportunity to bring ourselves closer to the people. We should ratify and accept the power that they wanted. There was alienation in 2009 and 2010. Let us get close to the people; let us have triennial Parliaments.