Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Back in September, Dr Malcolm Jack, the Clerk of the Commons, the House's resident expert on procedural questions, caused a few ripples when he suggested that there were serious legal complications with the coalition's Fixed Term Parliaments Bill.

This is the bill which seeks to set the date of the next general election for May 2015 - and require that all parliaments serve for a five year term, unless a two-thirds majority of the Commons voted for an early dissolution. It was given a second reading in the Commons in September, and will come back for detailed committee consideration by the whole House. In effect the bill would take away a prime minister's right to call an election at a moment of their choice - a right which gives a considerable tactical advantage to a governing party. But this simple-sounding idea requires a whole series of mechanisms to make it work. You have to define a two thirds majority, and the bill would require the Speaker to certify it had been achieved.

A government can still lose office on a simple majority vote - but the bill would mean that an election would not automatically follow. (I'm not sure that is the letter of the present constitutional convention, but it's what would usually happen) Instead, there would be a 14 day period for negotiations to form a new government - and only if none appeared would an election be triggered.

Dr Jack's worry about all this was that the very act of setting down in law the requirements for a dissolution vote, would allow the courts to rule on whether the vote had been properly taken - and in the worst-case scenario, to call off a general election in mid campaign. All kinds of issues could be in play. Had some MPs missed the votes because of a defective division bell in some remote corner of the Palace of Westminster? Had someone been double counted? Should the required two-thirds majority take account of the Sinn Fein MPs who don't take their seats in Westminster? The potential flaws in a vote are almost endless.

But the deputy prime minister need not fear for his bill, the Lords Constitution Committee heard on Wednesday, thanks to .

Bradlaugh was an atheist, a republican and an ultra-radical. And when he was elected he was prevented from taking the oath by an alliance of Tory MPs, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other bishops in Parliament. He fought for six years to be admitted to the Commons, winning re-election in Northampton four times in the process, and even being imprisoned in the cells in the Clock Tower.

But his contribution to the current bill came when he challenged the Commons authorities in the courts, to try to win the right to enter the House. His case was dismissed by Mr Justice Stephens in brisk style. He ruled that the courts had no right to interfere in the internal procedures of the Commons, and that ruling stands to this day.

So the very high-powered membership of the (it includes former Lord Chancellor Derry Irvine, former Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith, former Leader of the Lords Lady Jay, former Welsh Secretary Nick Edwards, now Lord Crickhowell, constitutional savant Lord Norton, and uber-barrister Lord Pannick among its distinguished cast) were treated to a rather brusque dismissal of Dr Jack's claims. "A very poor argument," said Oxford professor Anthony Bradley. "Highly unlikely," added UCL's Professor Dawn Oliver.

So one less issue for Nick Clegg to address when he appears before the committee next Wednesday - unless Dr Jack comes up with a counterblast. But they still have plenty of nits to pick. Should the fixed term for a parliament be five years, or maybe four? Should an election be triggered by a change of prime minister? Does this bill really stop a governing party manipulating an election date to its own advantage? Is it wise to limit the option to go to the country?

And above all, isn't this very profound change being pushed through without proper scrutiny, merely to suit the current requirement to handcuff the coalition partners together? The DPM can expect a tough time.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?