Member News
MPs have criticised the coalition for unnecessarily rushing through a bill that will legislate for fixed-term Parliaments.
In a report published today, the Commons political and constitutional reform committee said it had been a mistake to not subject the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill to pre-legislative scrutiny or wider consultation.
The committee said it was "acutely disappointing" that it had to chastise the new government for the process it had adopted in the passage of its first two constitutional bills, the other being the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill.
"While we understand the political impetus for making swift progress in this area, bills of such legal and constitutional sensitivity should be published in draft for full pre-legislative scrutiny, rather than proceeded with in haste," it said.
But speaking in the Commons yesterday afternoon the leader of the House Sir George Young dismissed allegations that the legislation was being pushed through without proper scrutiny from MPs.
He said: "At the beginning of a new Parliament, with a new government, it is not possible, if one is to make progress, to put everything in draft, particularly when commitments have been made to do certain things by a certain time.
"Those political imperatives sometimes override the ambition that both he and I have to subject all Bills to draft scrutiny."
And he pointed out that the government had allocated seven days for the Bill to be considered.
"We believe that the House will use the seven days intelligently and to best advantage," he said.
The flagship legislation being piloted through the Commons by Nick Clegg would fix each Parliament at five years, with this term only able to be broken if a "super majority" of MPs vote in favour of a dissolution of Parliament.
Currently the prime minister can dissolve Parliament and call a general election whenever he or she wishes.
But the committee warned that there is "much anxiety" about the circumstances in which the Bill would allow for a fixed term to be broken prematurely.
"The proposed requirement for a super-majority in the House of Commons to vote for an early general election is novel for the United Kingdom, and the consequences of the provisions for confidence motions contained in the Bill are uncertain," the MPs cautions.
Specifically the committee has called on the government to address concerns raised earlier this week by the clerk of the House of Commons who warned that the wording of the Bill could lead to the courts deciding whether there should be a general election or not.
"The purpose of the Bill needs to be achieved without inviting the courts to question aspects of the House’s own procedures or the actions of the Speaker," the report said.
MPs also questioned whether a fixed term of five years is the right length of time, and suggested it would be preferable to hold general elections every four years as the public deserve the right to vote more frequently on who governs them.
The committee concluded: "In the limited period we have had to receive evidence, most of the opinion suggests that it would be better for general elections to be held every four years, rather than every five.
"This is an important point, but not one that we would wish to see obstruct the passage of the Bill through the House.
"We would, however, expect the government to explain more fully to the House the advantages and disadvantages of four and five year terms."
Have your say...
Please enter your comments below.