Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

I shall keep my remarks brief as I understand that the Prime Minister might be rushing back to make a statement to the House about the commercialisation of Downing street following the revelations from the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) earlier this evening. I understand that the Liberal Democrats have a large campaign debt to pay off from Oldham East and Saddleworth. May I gently tease colleagues on the Government Benches about the importance of referring to the United Kingdom when speaking about our nation state? I am sure all colleagues are aware that we are not just England or Britain; we are the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) helpfully referred to an earlier edition of ““Erskine May”” with reference to the shouting of the phrase ““Shame!”” from a sedentary position. It might help the House if I clarify that that applied up to the 19th edition of ““Erskine May””. Since then, I am advised, the term has been removed from ““Erskine May”” and is therefore, I imagine, legitimate. Addressing new clause 4 and the associated amendments which, as ““Erskine May”” says, is the purpose of the debate, I shall tackle head-on the question whether the Opposition support the principle of a fixed-term Parliament. It is well known that we did not oppose Second Reading because we support the principle of a fixed-term Parliament. Our specific objections have been not just to the length—four or five years—but to some of the technical issues, which is why my hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda and for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and others have tabled a series of tidying-up amendments, as we would describe them, although I understand that not every hon. Member supports that principle.