MPS call for ‘catastrophic’ Fixed-term Parliaments Act to be scrapped
Coalition legislation has trapped the Prime Minister and abolishing it should be a priority, say critics
THE Government is coming under increasing pressure to scrap the “Kafkaesque” Fixed-term Parliaments Act amid mounting criticism it contributed to the political impasse over Brexit.
Described by Jacob Rees-mogg, the Leader of the House, as a “monstrosity”, the legislation – hastily drafted to hold the coalition government together in 2010 – stopped Boris Johnson calling a general election to break the deadlock as it required the agreement of two thirds of MPS.
Yesterday, Sir Alan Duncan, the former foreign minister, who tried to repeal the Act in a 10-minute rule Bill in 2015, said it had “catastrophic constitutional significance”.
He said: “We all understand why it came into being. It was to be the glue in the coalition government after the 2010 election. But it should have had a sunset clause. Its effect is now to trammel this Government and our Prime Minister in a very Kafkaesque trap: he is finding it very difficult to govern but is unable to call a general election. I very much hope that the first act of the new parliament will be to abolish the Fixed-term Parliaments Act.”
David Starkey, the constitutional historian, said the “rushed” legislation had “turned Parliament into a mere playpen”. The 2017 Conservative Party manifesto pledged to repeal the Act but government sources said it was “not a top priority”, despite Mr Reesmogg’s outspoken criticism.
In February, the prominent Brexiteer called the Act a “monstrosity”, saying: “It’s not been good for our form of
‘The Act is working fine: it’s the rest of our constitution which is the problem’
government and allows MPS to be frivolous in how they vote.”
The Act was called into question last month when MPS threatened to drag the Queen into a constitutional crisis over Brexit. The legislation does not specify how an alternative government would communicate to the monarch that they had secured the support of a majority of MPS in the event of the ruling party losing a confidence vote, potentially compromising the Queen’s neutrality.
While she would typically be expected to invite the main Opposition party to try to form a government, questions were raised over what she would do if Jeremy Corbyn was rejected as a caretaker leader in favour of a government of national unity led by someone else.
One former minister suggested that the Queen would only be able to act on a Commons motion or a signed declaration in the absence of any guidance in law.
Although the Act has courted criticism, Polly Mackenzie, a senior adviser to Nick Clegg when he was deputy prime minister, defended the legislation. “The Act is working fine: it’s the rest of our constitution which is the problem,” she said, pointing out it had prevented Theresa May pushing through the Withdrawal Agreement by threatening a general election.
“In previous times the Brexit vote would have been a matter of confidence: voting it down would have toppled the government. This might have got the Withdrawal Agreement through Parliament,” she said.
A No10 source said: “While it’s absolutely right to keep the pressure up on it, the public will want us to push ahead with more important priorities.”