Let me just finish this point. The Government could not accept amendment 32 as drafted even if we thought that keeping the clock ticking was the right thing to do. However, we thought about the issue carefully, which we also debated a little on Second Reading. The Government did not think that resetting the clock made sense for this reason. If there were an early election because the Government had lost their majority and gone to the country, and a Government were then returned with a significant majority, it would not be right for that Government, perhaps with a clear mandate, to be unable to put their programme to the country and carry it through. When people go to the polls, they expect that they are electing a Government who will last for a full term, with the ability to carry through a full programme. The Constitution Committee in the other place considered the evidence from other countries, including the Swedish model, and was told that the prospect of leaving the clock ticking actually protected the Government—the Executive—rather than the Parliament.
Fixed-term Parliaments Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Mark Harper
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 16 November 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Fixed-term Parliaments Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
518 c845-6 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 13:47:27 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_681821
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_681821
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_681821