Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

My Lords, this amendment goes to the heart of the Bill in that it seeks to reduce the period of a fixed-term Parliament from five years to four years. This important Bill may well bring about a significant change to our politics by changing the position from a situation in which the norm for our Parliaments is to last around three years and eight months to four years—with a maximum of five years—to a norm for our Parliaments to last for five years, with the possibility of going below that period only in exceptional circumstances. The reason why the proposal in the Bill has been advanced has been given on the basis of high principle. At Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, said that: "““The Fixed-term Parliaments Bill delivers a key strand of the ambitious political and constitutional reform agenda which this Government have pledged to deliver””." He went on to say: "““There is now a consensus across the country—dare I say brought to a head by the expenses scandal but which had been forming for some time—that the political system in this country needs to be reinvigorated””.—[Official Report, 1/3/2011; cols. 929-30.]" The noble and learned Lord is nodding helpfully. He is putting forward this Bill as part of that reinvigoration process. His leader, Nick Clegg, has spoken in a similar vein. The Select Committee of this House which reported on the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill had the privilege of Mr Clegg appearing in front of it. Its report states: "““The Fixed-term Parliaments Bill is just one part of a package of proposed reforms intended by the Government to make the political system ‘far more transparent and accountable’. In his evidence, the Deputy Prime Minister told us that: ‘it is an unambiguous judgment on our part that reducing the power of the executive, seeking to boost the power of the legislature, making the legislatures more accountable to people ... collectively introduces the mechanisms by which people can exercise greater control over politicians’””." The Deputy Prime Minister has also said that the time has come to stop people being allowed to, "““play politics with the dates of a general election””.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/6/10; col. 40.]" That is the high-flown basis on which the matter is put forward. Happily, we have the account of the circumstances in which the five-year term was agreed, provided by Mr David Laws. I quote him from the introduction to his book: "““My intention in writing this book is not to describe an all-too-brief Cabinet career. It is instead to inform those who are interested in this important period of British politics and to make sure that an accurate account is left of what really happened in May 2010 before memories fade, myths grow and the evidence is lost””." On page 98, he writes that Andrew Stunell pointed out to the Conservative negotiators that, "““trust and confidence was very important to us, and that we wouldn’t want to find the PM calling an election at a time that did not suit us. ‘That works both ways!’ said William Hague. We mentioned that our own policy was for four-year, fixed-term Parliaments. George Osborne made the point that five-year parliaments were better, as they allowed governments to get into implementing their plans before having to start worrying about the timing of the electoral cycle. We made no objection to this, and Britain was on its way to five-year, fixed-term parliaments, for the first time in its history””." That is how the Liberal Democrats moved from four years to five years; they did it because of the problem of trust. We should look at the proposals that are being put forward by the coalition with a moderately jaundiced eye, particularly because of the disingenuous way in which it is being done. However, that does not relieve this House from considering as a matter of principle for the British people whether the right period is five years or four years. We are clear that the evidence—and this should be decided on the basis of evidence—is strongly in favour of four years rather than five. A mistake that the coalition persistently makes, and made in relation to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill as well, is that because judgment is required in coming to a conclusion on whether a particular course should be taken, all evidence can therefore be ignored. One simply, for example, has a conversation with Mr Andrew Stunell which lasts 40 seconds, at which point you abandon the policies that one has adopted for the previous 20 years. That does not sound to me like the exercise of a judgment; it sounds like playing politics with the date of the next election, which is precisely what the Deputy Prime Minister said should not happen. We in this House have an especial responsibility in determining what the length of a Parliament should be. It is an area where the Parliament Act does not normally apply, although I accept that its being five years is not the reason for its not applying. Nevertheless, it is an area where this House has an especial responsibility to ensure that the matter is looked at on the basis of evidence. What does the evidence show? The Select Committee looking at the Bill heard evidence, which did not happen in terms of pre-legislative scrutiny, and concluded unequivocally that the evidence showed that four years was the right answer rather than five. In her speech at Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said: "““The weight of evidence from British and international experts to the committee was against a five-year norm as against a five-year maximum””." We should remember that this legislation involves a change from a five-year maximum to a five-year norm. She continued: "““My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer has already quoted Democratic Audit, which expressed alarm that a five-year term would present, ‘a reversal of a long struggle for more accountable government’. Overseas experience, for example from Canada and Sweden, suggested, in the words of witnesses, that, ‘there seems to be a kind of natural rhythm around four years’, and, ‘four years is more consistent with voter expectations’, all of which appears inconsistent with the Deputy Prime Minister’s evidence to us that his ‘unambiguous aim’ is to, ‘make the legislature more accountable to the electorate and to introduce the mechanisms by which people can exercise greater control over politicians’. Our evidence suggests very clearly that this unambiguous aim may not be achieved by this Bill””.—[Official Report, 1/3/11; cols. 1005-1006.]" The noble Lord, Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield said: "““As well as the biorhythmic arithmetic, we need to consider the quality of government and political life in the fifth year of Parliaments that have gone to the wire. They have rarely been shining patches in the life of Administrations. Ministers are often tired and accident prone. The palette of the electorate becomes progressively more jaded. A kind of pre-electoral blight sets in. Of course it could be argued that the final year of a fixed-term four-year Parliament would be similarly blighted. Certainly, the press would succumb to its customary pre-election frenzy as the last year deepened. However, the blight is likely to be less pronounced towards the end of a four-year span than a five-year one, and accountability is more likely to be enhanced by a four-year cycle””.—[Official Report, 1/3/11; col. 935.]" My noble friend Lord Grocott said: "““There is no doubt that the fifth year of a Parliament, in our constitutional history and experience if not in theory, is nearly always a completely unsatisfactory year””.—[Official Report, 1/3/11; col. 958.]" The overwhelming view expressed during the course of the Second Reading debate, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, and some Back-Benchers on the Government’s side, was that five-years as the norm is a bad idea. That was the weight of the evidence before the Select Committee and the experience of active politicians such as my noble friend Lord Grocott, so where is the evidence in favour of five years? I have looked hard to find it. I have read very carefully the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, to see what arguments he advanced. He said that it would be possible to plan more easily if you had five-year terms. I fail to understand why planning cannot take place whether the norm is four years or five years. It is an entirely bogus argument. Secondly, the point was made that you would have a longer time in which to implement your provisions. The throw-away remark of Mr George Osborne which appears in Mr Laws’s book appears to be the reason for five years. It states: "““George Osborne made the point that five-year Parliaments were better, as they allowed governments to get into implementing their plans before having to start worrying about the timing of the electoral cycle””." Presumably, that would depend entirely upon the length of time their plans took in any individual case. It is therefore difficult to see the force of that argument. As was said at Second Reading, when Asquith introduced the current arrangements he made it clear that he thought a five-year maximum would, in practice, lead to a four-year period of time, which he said was sufficiently close at some stages to the previous election and sufficiently near to the next election to lead to accountability. If the coalition were serious about trying to reinvigorate our politics, it would at least address that issue. The consequence of there having been a four-year fixed term is that there would have been four fewer general elections between now and 1945. If your aim is to connect more with the electorate, surely reducing the number of general elections rather than increasing them will have precisely the opposite effect of that which Mr Nicholas Clegg and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, put forward. There is no doubt in anybody’s mind that this proposal is put forward as means of gluing the coalition together. Mr David Laws says that that is the reason. As I said at Second Reading, there is no need for an Act of Parliament, bogusly dressed up as a piece of high constitutional principle, in order to achieve that. All you need do is stick by your word if you are a Tory or a Liberal Democrat. I ask the coalition to please think again about our constitution. Is it genuinely better for Britain and for encouraging trust in our politicians to say that now there should be longer between elections than previously? I earnestly ask the coalition to consider whether the electorate might think that the coalition is doing this so that it can stay in power for as long as possible. That sense is perhaps increased by the broken promises the coalition has made in relation to the conduct of the Bill. On 25 May 2010, Mr David Heath, the Deputy Leader of the House, said that there would be no guillotines—but there were. He said that he would favour pre-legislative scrutiny as long as it did not lead the Bill to go over into the next Session. Despite the fact that this Session was then extended until May 2012, he reneged on that particular promise. This is a matter of some importance and it is not too late for the coalition to rethink what is best for the British constitution and to perhaps accept the overwhelming weight of evidence from academics, active politicians, committees that have looked at it, the Minister’s own party, my party, my noble friend Lord Plant, the three respected Back-Benchers who over the 10 years since 1993 have introduced fixed-term Parliament Bills—Tony Wright, David Howarth and my noble friend Lord Rooker—all of whom have favoured four years. Does the noble and learned Lord not think that maybe five years is the wrong length of time and that four years is right? If he is not able to persuade the coalition to change its mind, I hope that this House, having considered the evidence, will conclude that the right way to protect the constitution is to support the amendment and reduce the period of the fixed term to four years. I beg to move.