Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

That is a perceptive way of putting it; I congratulate my hon. Friend on his perspicacity. I have great reservations about our movement towards what is seen as a new kind of political understanding. One of the great objections relates to the ease with which it is possible to break manifesto promises, enter into coalitions and then break them as well. Subsequently, a Parliament might emerge that embodied all the thinking of those broken promises in the form of a new politics. That next Parliament is then intended to carry on as if nothing had happened. I think that that is a very unsatisfactory way of governing, and a very undemocratic way of conducting our affairs. New clause 5 provides that"““In the course of the first month of the day of first meeting of any Parliament after the expiry””" of the provision that governs the issue of early parliamentary elections,"““the Minister””" —who, for practical purposes, will be the Prime Minister—"““may by order bring the section back into force for the remainder of that Parliament.””" I was advised that, within the scope of the Bill, it would not be possible for me to provide for a sunset clause, because the new clause would then be seen as a wrecking amendment and you, Mr. Speaker, would not select it. In fact it would have been a wrecking new clause, but, although I have heard the expression ““wrecking amendment””, I have never heard of a wrecking new clause. Let us not worry about that, however. We now come to the mechanics of the way in which my new clause would operate. Were such an order made, it would have to be made by statutory instrument, and there would be a requirement, or obligation, in law. The order"““shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the House””." That is the key issue. The House of Commons, as reconvened after the expiry of that Parliament and the election of a new one, would have to approve the revival of section 2, which would at least give Members an opportunity to debate the procedure and decide whether that was the way they wished to proceed. If no order was made, an early parliamentary election could take place only if the House had passed a motion allowing such an election, which puts the shoe on the other foot. The reconvened House of Commons would almost certainly be of a completely different composition, and, indeed, may have been elected on the basis of completely different principles, especially if the horrendous alternative vote provisions ever come into force. This, and indeed all that we discuss in relation to the current spate of constitutional measures, represents a silent constitutional revolution. The Minister may well say, ““You describe it as a silent revolution, but you talk about the issue a good deal, and so do many of your colleagues.”” Given that the best way to keep a secret is to make a speech in the House of Commons, I can be reasonably confident that no one will have heard the arguments. However, I think it important to put on record, with no diffidence whatsoever because I am a realist when it comes to these matters, that, whether or not we happen to win the vote, following the comments of the hon. Member for Rhondda I feel a little more confident that the Opposition will support the new clause. I may discover in a moment whether that is the case. I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman nodding: that is a starter for one. The essence of the argument is that there is no rational basis on which the legislation should be regarded as relating to any future Parliament. We should make our decision in our Parliament, along with decisions on a range of questions relating to the breaches of the coalition agreement, the broken manifesto promises, and whether we are satisfied with the progress being made over the next few years. There are certain things, although some people may think not many, which I believe that the coalition has delivered well. It is rather like the curate's egg. That is because, outweighing that, there are many other things that I regard the coalition as having delivered less well. That is merely the opinion of one humble Back Bencher, but that fact does not prevent me from advancing my arguments as and when I feel it necessary to do so. Some will have noticed that I have not been slow in coming forward with my concerns when I think it is appropriate. The Bill will have to go to the House of Lords, and I was therefore extremely interested in a paper by the House of Lords Constitution Committee, which was published on 16 December. It may or may not have been noticed by Members, but the majority of the Committee believed that the appropriate length of a fixed parliamentary term should not be five years, but four years. That is very interesting, because given the shenanigans that we have been witnessing in the other House, which seem to me—