Working to make government more effective

Comment

Might Cameron shut Parliament early?

Hannah White asks whether the Prime Minister might call an early halt to business in Parliament.

As the first fixed-term parliament draws to a close, Hannah White asks whether the Prime Minister might exercise the small degree of discretion left to him by the Fixed-Term Parliament Act and call an early halt to business in Parliament.

There is some ongoing debate about the impact of the 2011 Act which fixed our parliamentary calendar. It sets the date of the forthcoming general election as 7 May 2015, and of each subsequent election as being on the first Thursday in May in every fifth year thereafter. Early elections can be held only if a motion to do so is agreed – either by at least two-thirds of MPs, or without a vote – or if a motion of no confidence is passed and no alternative government is confirmed by the Commons within 14 days. Some argue the Act has had unforeseen constitutional implications and its repeal ought to be a government priority. Others trumpet the benefits of knowing how long a parliament has left to run. A much more minor question arises from one of the only areas of discretion left to the Prime Minister – when to call a halt to parliamentary proceedings by asking the Queen to ‘prorogue the House’ in the run-up to the election campaign. Could there be any advantage to the Prime Minister in exercising his discretion over this date? So what exactly is prorogation and what implications does it have for the business of government? Prorogation, which remains a Royal Prerogative, brings an end to nearly all parliamentary business until Parliament is summoned to sit again. MPs continue to hold their seats during a prorogation, and these occur on several occasions over the course of a Parliament’s lifetime – normally between each yearly parliamentary session, during late April or early May. But dissolution only occurs before elections, as MPs lose their seats in the Commons and campaigning begins to elect (or re-elect) Members of the House. Since the introduction of the Fixed-Term Parliament Act, we have – for the first time – known the date of parliament’s dissolution in advance: Monday 30 March, 25 working days before polling day. And to spare MPs the need to return to London for purely ceremonial purposes it’s been expected on Thursday 26 March on the last parliamentary working day before dissolution. In theory, the business so far announced for next week (the conclusion of the Budget Debate and wrapping up of the Finance Bill, and Lords Amendments on various minor pieces of legislation) could be pushed through more quickly if necessary. But would there be any advantage to proroguing early? It would not make any difference to the length of the ‘short’ election campaign – which can only start once Parliament has been dissolved and every seat in the House of Commons has become vacant. Nor is the civil service’s period of ‘purdah’ related to prorogation. Purdah is the period during which civil servants must exercise discretion about announcing any new or controversial government initiatives which could be seen to be advantageous to any candidates or parties in the forthcoming election. Purdah rules do not apply during the annual period between prorogation and the State Opening unless Parliament has also been dissolved – as before a General Election. It is only when Parliament is dissolved that the ‘purdah’ rules kick in. So between prorogation and dissolution, civil servants continue to serve ministers as normal. The only impact of early prorogation would be to prevent further business from taking place in Parliament. This would allow MPs to return to their constituencies earlier than expected to prepare for the short campaign – but that would be equally advantageous to all sitting Members. Thus the only conceivable advantage which could be gained would be to wrong foot the other parties by denying them a final opportunity to transact final pieces of business in the House or pose questions to the Prime Minister at the last planned PMQs. And having already been accused of being ‘frit’ for refusing to participate in cross-party TV debates, the Prime Minister is unlikely to provide his opponents with the chance to claim he is making use of a Royal Prerogative to avoid a final showdown with Ed Miliband in the House. So the impact of shutting down Parliament early would be small, and the gains for Cameron relatively minor. But with so few powers left to the PM since the introduction of fixed-term parliaments, it is just possible that he decides to use the one left to him to secure for his MPs a bit of a head-start in the looming election campaign.

Related content