Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 6th July 2021 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I have to tell the House that Mr Speaker has not selected the reasoned amendment.

Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading
Monday 13th September 2021 Commons Chamber

Dame Eleanor Laing in the Chair

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Just before we begin the consideration, I should explain that although the Chair of the Committee would normally sit in a Clerk’s chair during the Committee stage, the Chair of proceedings will remain in the Speaker’s Chair while we still have the screens around the Table, about which, the House will note, I have complained several times today because they restrict the view of the Chair. That was all very well while we were working from a written list, but now that it is necessary for Members to catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair, it is also necessary for the occupant of the Chair to be able to see all Members. The person in the Speaker’s Chair will be carrying out the role not of Deputy Speaker but of Chairman of the Committee, and they should be addressed as Chairman, rather than as Deputy Speaker.

Clause 1

Repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Clauses 2 and 3 stand part.

Amendment 2, in clause 4, page 2, line 3, leave out “it first met” and insert “of the most recent general election”

The intention of this amendment is to require that the last date for a general election is five years after the previous general election.

Clauses 4, 5 and 6 stand part.

New clause 1—Election timetable not to disregard Saturdays and Sundays and bank holidays—

‘(1) Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 is amended as follows.

(2) In rule 2 (1), omit sub-paragraphs (a) and (b).”

The purpose of this new clause is to reduce the time between dissolution and the next meeting of Parliament, by including weekends and bank holidays within the parliamentary general election timetable.

New clause 2—Early parliamentary general elections—

‘(1) An early parliamentary general election may take place sooner than the automatic dissolution under section 4 of this Act only in accordance with this section.

(2) An early parliamentary general election is to take place only if the House of Commons passes a motion in the form set out in subsection (3).

(3) The form of motion for the purposes of subsection (2) is—

(none) “That there shall be an early parliamentary general election.”

(4) Subsection (5) applies for the purposes of the Timetable in rule 1 in Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983.

(5) If a parliamentary general election is to take place as provided for by subsection (2), the polling day for the election is to be the day appointed by Her Majesty by proclamation on the recommendation of the Prime Minister which must be no later than 30 days after the date on which the House of Commons has passed the motion in the form set out in subsection (3).”

The intention of this new clause is to make dissolution subject to a vote of the House of Commons.

New clause 5—Calling of Parliament—

‘(1) The date for the first meeting of a new Parliament must be specified in any proclamation for the dissolution of a Parliament.

(2) The date specified in accordance with subsection (1) may not be later than the 14th day after polling day.”

The intention of this new clause is to require Parliament to meet, and a newly elected Commons to sit to elect a Speaker, within two weeks of a general election.

Amendment 3, in the Schedule, page 4, line 22, leave out “19th” and insert “12th”

The intention of this amendment is to shorten the period between dissolution of one Parliament and the first meeting of the next Parliament by reducing the general election campaign from 25 days to 18.

Amendment 4, page 7, line 15, after “subsection (2)” insert “and”

This is a drafting amendment consequential on Amendment 5.

Amendment 5, page 7, line 17, leave out from “(ii)” to end of line 19 and insert “omit paragraph (b)”

This amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State could not make regulations to combine a UK General Election and an extraordinary general election to the Senedd.

Schedule stand part.

[The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith)]

May I initially seek your guidance, Chairman? Would you like me to cover all the clause stand parts and to respond, as it were, in advance to amendments? Or would you like me to return to respond to hon. Members once they have spoken to their amendments?

[The Chairman]

That is a perfectly reasonable question from the Minister. As all matters are grouped in one group, she may, in her opening remarks, refer to all amendments and clauses standing part, but of course she will have an opportunity to answer points made by Members when they introduce their amendments and new clauses. Or should I say “he”—[Interruption.] I should say “they”, as the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) has a new clause as well. It is perfectly in order for the Minister to now address everything that is on the amendment paper.

[Chloe Smith]

Thank you very much indeed, Dame Eleanor. I shall endeavour to do that, and I hope you will bear with me while I ensure that I cover all that material.

Let me begin at the beginning, with clause 1. There is consensus throughout the House that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 has proven to be not fit for purpose and has been damaging to effective and accountable government. The experience of 2019 in particular showed us that the Act was flawed and ran counter to core constitutional principles, and was therefore damaging to the flexible functioning of our constitution. It was unique legislation and it did not work. We saw how, in 2017, a Government who commanded a majority in the House of Commons were able to call an early general election with ease, irrespective of the Act’s intentions.

The events of 2019 then demonstrated how the 2011 Act could obstruct democracy by making it harder to hold a necessary election. The Act’s prescriptive constraints, such as the threshold of a supermajority requirement for a general election and the statutory motions of no confidence, created an untenable situation in which the Government could neither pass vital legislation through Parliament nor call a new election. The result was parliamentary paralysis at a critical time for our Government. The introduction of bespoke primary legislation that circumvented the Act and let us hold a general election in 2019 was the final indictment of the Act.

The Bill therefore repeals the 2011 Act and returns us to the tried and tested system whereby Parliament will automatically dissolve after five years, if it has not been dissolved earlier by the sovereign exercising that prerogative power at the request of the Prime Minister. The key argument is that in doing so it will help to deliver increased legal, constitutional and political certainty around the process for the dissolving of Parliament. Clause 1 repeals the 2011 Act and in doing so delivers, as I have already mentioned, on both a Government manifesto commitment and a Labour manifesto commitment to do so. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

Clause 2 makes express provision to revive the prerogative powers that relate to the dissolution of Parliament and the calling of a new Parliament. That means that Parliament will, once more, be dissolved by the sovereign at the request of the Prime Minister. By doing this, the clause delivers on the Bill’s purpose, which is to reset the clock back to the pre-2011 position with as much clarity as possible. The clause is clear in its intention and in its effect. As the Joint Committee on the Fixed-term Parliaments Act put it, the drafting of clause 2 is

“sufficiently clear to give effect to the Government’s intention of returning to the constitutional position”

that existed prior to the passing of the 2011 Act.

Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 14th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

It is definitely fair to say that there are new arrangements. That is why the Minister said the amendment would be inappropriate, but I do not think it would be. By the way, I have not seen “The Crown”; my wife and I are working our way through “Flip or Flop”, and there are 160 episodes of it, so it may take some time. In the scenario that the hon. Lady talks about, we have seen in recent history Prime Ministers who are losing the confidence of their party talking in terms of “Back me or sack me”. The reality is that the Bill, without this minor safeguard, would mean that a “Back me or sack me” moment, rather than it being won as a parliamentary process with a party’s Back Benchers, would instead play out as a party psychodrama with the general electorate. I think that would be a bad thing.

I will finish with three further quick arguments against giving the Government the power they seek, or at least not without this minor fettering suggested by the Lords. First, it comes back to a question of electoral advantage and ensuring that elections are fair. It is an age-old argument, and an issue that has launched a thousand dissertations—it was one of the major reasons for the 2011 Act—but it has become only more salient since then. Over the past 12 years, we have seen increasing restrictions on party and non-party activity, and the Elections Bill will put more in. These provisions are backdated, and that provides a significant advantage for candidates of the current governing party during the short campaign period, but the advantage grows further for parties, as the regulated period for political parties is now 365 days prior to election day. It is a heck of an advantage to know that start. The amendment would not completely get rid of that, but it would even the scales, and that is another good reason to support it.

Secondly—others colleagues have brought this up, and if I stray out of order, I know I will be told off, so I will be very quick—surely the real lesson to take from that 2019 episode is that by including a parliamentary rubber stamp on Dissolution, we remove any risk of dragging the Crown into such a decision. I think all right hon. and hon. Members would seek to avoid that, because it was an unedifying moment.

Hon. Members have mentioned the courts and the justiciability of the decisions. The Lords amendment would settle that for certain because a vote in this House would be a definitive answer. I know that the Government think that the Bill’s ouster clause will resolve all matters relating to the courts, but I say to them that we will see; I do not think it is as definitive as they say.

I urge the House to support the Lords amendment. The Minister has made a passionate exposition of his case. I gently say to Conservative Back Benchers that the Bill is obviously targeted at restricting the activities of the Opposition, but that means them too. I see some mischievous faces, including the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), who is an independent figure. They mean to fetter their own—[Interruption.] The Minister says otherwise, but I gently say to him that the last time that was tested with the Government, which was the first week of September 2019, 21 of your colleagues lost the Whip—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Not of my colleagues.

[Alex Norris]

Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker: 21 of the Minister’s colleagues. Of course, they were rare circumstances, but it has happened again in this Parliament that when the Government face opposition from outside, they seek to shut us out, and when they find opposition inside, they seek to lock yourselves out as well.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Themselves.

[Alex Norris]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I say to the Government that it is not a one-way street and we think that having some checks and balances in our democracy is a good thing. In that spirit, I hope that hon. Members will vote in support of the Lords amendment.