What happens in wash up – and what will happen to the Digital Economy Bill?

The concept of “wash up” has become subject of greater attention just before the last few general elections, but it’s not nearly as special as descriptions make it sound. What happens is that just before Parliament is dissolved for a general election various pieces of legislation are rushed through rather than be lost and have to start again from scratch after the election. There are no special Parliamentary rules to allow this speedy legislation. Instead, Parliament just has to vote for speedy processes as it can at any other time in the Parliamentary cycle. If you have the votes, you can have the speed.

With no one party having an overall majority in the House of Lords, the process therefore requires a degree of cross-party agreement and the attitude from both Labour and Conservatives is very much that this means Labour and Tories have to agree. But there is no formal requirement for cross-party agreement; all that is required is a majority of one in votes.

Although Labour has a majority in the Commons, and with Lib Dems and others can have a majority in the Lords, it is accommodation with the Conservatives that Labour has been seeking in the preliminary chatter about how wash up may operate this time round.

The proposed referendum on AV is almost certainly going to die a death as Labour does not seem to be up for pushing it and other constitutional reform through. Matters are more complicated on the Digital Economy Bill.

In the Commons, Labour has enough votes on its own, in theory, to get the Bill through with all the controversial clauses intact. There may be sufficient Labour rebels to force some changes,but it will be hard to have a successful rebellion when so many MPs would rather be campaigning in their constituencies and when the Conservatives have said they back the Bill, including its controversial elements.

Some amendments are certain to be made in the Commons, as there are changes the Government wants to (un)make to the Bill. That will then require those parts of the Bill to go back again to the House of Lords.

Labour is likely to get its way in the Lords also as the Conservatives in the Lords back the Digital Economy Bill and its controversial elements. In addition, Conservative peers have been very reluctant to face down the House of Commons. When controversial legislation has gone back and forth between Commons and Lords in the past, even when the Conservatives are solidly opposed to it they have reasonably quickly pulled back from opposition on the basis that they do not want the Lords to usurp the Commons.

Therefore even if the Tories decide to back some further changes to the Digital Economy Bill, unless there are sufficient Labour rebels to win a vote in the Commons, it is very unlikely that Conservative peers will see the matter through and insist on those changes.

What does this all mean overall? It’s that the real power over the Digital Economy Bill rests with David Cameron and the Conservative Shadow Cabinet. If they decide to oppose the Bill – and to oppose it on the principle that controversial, complicated legislation should not be rushed through – then that will be sufficient to win the votes in the Lords and to provide a decent reason for the Lords to stand its ground. The Lords would not be usurping the Commons; it would just be insisting the Commons should have proper debates.

The likely Liberal Democrat votes against in both Commons and Lords, whilst welcome, will not in themselves be sufficient.

A final thought about the timing: many MPs will face a tough choice between being in their constituencies, talking to constituents in advance of the election, or being in Westminster, voting on the Bill. When legislation is properly timetabled, MPs can balance those choices appropriately. When it is rushed through, it is much harder to balance those conflicting demands on finite time. The real blame for MPs missing votes on the Digital Economy Bill will be Labour’s decision to push ahead with it in the dying days of the Parliament.

When Labour and the Tories called a snap sudden vote on freedom of information over MPs’ expenses, some campaigners subsequently blamed MPs who were absent from the vote rather than the Labour and Tory whips who forced a sudden vote. Wiser campaigners this time round should not blame those who should be their allies but instead put blame where it is deserved: on those who insist on badly timed votes.

Read more by or more about or .
This entry was posted in General Election and News.
Bookmark the web address for this page or use the short url http://ldv.org.uk/18721 for Twitter and emails.

7 Comments

  • yeah – had ORG and alike focused their efforts on lobbying the Tories then perhaps they would have been more successful in their rather lacklustre campaign against the Bill!

  • Andrew Suffield 6th Apr '10 - 5:48pm

    Don Foster’s position in the house is not a faithful representation of the emergency motion on this issue. I am unimpressed.

  • Very unimpressed with our front bench after all the hard work done by campaigners such as Bridget Fox and the emergency motion at conference. Why do we bother?

  • Voted Lib Dem in the past two general elections, shan’t be doing so this time after yesterday’s performance.

    That was pitiful. One inarticulate LD MP was all we got from the party which was supposed to be on our side – even the conservatives did better than that. I don’t believe any LD supporter could listen to that debate and not feel ashamed of the party that was supposed to be speaking for us.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?




Recent Comments

  • User AvatarMatGB 1st Aug - 12:10am
    Jackie, 19 Tories, 6 LibDems (including the neutral mayor who'll vote with the cabniet to break ties by tradition), 25 Labour and one Independent. One...
  • User AvatarJayne Mansfield 1st Aug - 12:08am
    @Steve, So where are all the black managers then? There have been so many excellent. Black players who have served their club or their country...
  • User AvatarJames Brough 31st Jul - 11:59pm
    Richard, as the page I linked to said, the party was known as the Liberals at that point. But, you know what? I suspect you...
  • User AvatarJayne Mansfield 31st Jul - 11:58pm
    Happy birthday Caron. I hope that you didn't stuff yourself at the celebratory meal and end up feeling sick as a parrot.
  • User AvatarRichard Dean 31st Jul - 11:41pm
    @James Brough. Time travel is here! The LIberal Democrats were formed 13 years after you say they started working on the policy! At that time,...
  • User AvatarFrank Bowles 31st Jul - 11:35pm
    Despite all her "why aren't there more women in the cabinet" she doesn't click think that it could be Dad not Mum who takes Andrew...