The noble Lord is quite right to point that out, but it has long been Liberal Democrat policy, with which I firmly agree and consider extremely important, that we should have fixed-term Parliaments in the long term, because they make a level playing field. The question that we are considering in the context of the Bill is whether those Parliaments should be for four years or five. It is of no assistance to say that we can fix a Parliament for five years now and decide later. We are determining the right period under the Bill. This Parliament cannot bind its successors, as the noble Lord plainly knows. If a future Parliament should take a different view, it is for that Parliament to legislate, as my noble friend pointed out. However, on consideration of this Parliament and what we should do now, we say that, as a matter of principle, it is right to go for five years.
Understandable concern has been expressed on all sides of the House and by the Constitution Committee about the need for pre-legislative scrutiny. If we accept that there is a need for pre-legislative scrutiny of important legislation, then the first year of a Parliament will generally be given over in respect of important legislation to that scrutiny.
Fixed-term Parliaments Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 21 March 2011.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Fixed-term Parliaments Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
726 c490 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 15:17:30 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_729215
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_729215
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_729215