Daniel Greenberg, PLC consultant:
The Government’s announcement on 13 September about the plans to extend the present Parliamentary Session until 2012, and the introduction of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, have a number of practical implications.
First and most immediate, instead of the normal sudden rush of new Acts of Parliament around the end of October, there is no reason to expect a particular flood of Acts until the spring of 2012; and even then, it could be that the length of the Session will make it possible to pass Bills in gentle stages without the need for a rush at the end at all.
The coincidence of the new end of Sessions and the traditional date for the Budget and Finance Bill raises some interesting questions, that possibly have yet to be thought through at a political level, and have certainly not yet been explained publicly; tax lawyers in particular will be waiting to see how the new arrangements are intended to affect Budget timing.
In terms of longer term political tactics, the new arrangements have a number of implications. The theory is that all Sessions, but particularly the final one before a general election, will be capable of being managed in a more orderly way, with fewer surprises at the end of each Session. That should help interest-groups and others trying to influence legislation during its passage: in particular, it should enable a progressive lobbying campaign to be constructed at the beginning of a Bill’s Parliamentary journey, with less fear of being disrupted due to the need to make time for other legislation late in the Session. Taken together with the now-permanent Standing Order allowing the carry-over of public Bills from one Session to another (SO 80A), the combined effect of the new arrangements should be beneficial for all involved with lengthy technical Bills that need serious amendment during their passage.
So much for the theory, which has a fair chance of becoming at least partly the reality: but it is worth noting that one of the lasting effects of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill may be to make Parliamentary terms (as distinct from intermediate Sessions) less fixed than they were before! Because there is now to be a statutory procedure for forcing a dissolution (see clause 2) it is now more likely than it was before that a moribund Government will collapse suddenly as the result of a no-confidence motion, disrupting previously announced dates for a planned election. We will be in a better position to assess the potential for political hijacking of this kind when we can see the final shape of the Act that emerges from the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill.
The formal announcement of the new arrangements was made by Written Ministerial Statement and can be found at HC Deb 13 Sep 2010 34WS.
Daniel Greenberg was Parliamentary Counsel (UK) from 1991-2010 and is now parliamentary counsel in the Parliamentary Team at Berwin Leighton Paisner LLP and the editor of Craies on Legislation.
I am interested to see (belatedly) your optimism for the concept of the F-T Parliament, having regard to the overall management of the passage of bills under your programming arrangements, coupled with a 5-year term and relatively low level of primary legislation compared with the amound of secondary legislation. I seem to recall that the Bill is more a response to the coalition’s requirement for a decent period of stability than the need for better programming. In utter contrast, consider the predicament of legislators and their drafters in far-flung NZ. A 3-year term, almost nothing akin to your programming, and nothing as defining of the legislative programme as a Queen’s Speech. However, a new departure this year has been the announcement some 11 months out from the election, of the polling date. I was working on the Electoral Referendum bill at the time with the select committee – some (opposition) politicians were paranoid that a possible early election could cut short the public education programme on the electoral system (when pro-MMP lobbyists intend to operate at full tilt). I suppose that certainty (while having something to do with the timing of the Rugby World Cup) was perceived as giving due notice and better enabling the Government to soldier through the legislative programme. The thought of a F-T parliament got short shrift here. I will watch with interest as your new legislation plays out in due course.