Fixed-term Parliaments: better by standing orders?

Last week Malcolm Jack, the Clerk of the House of Commons, got a little flurry of media coverage for his evidence before a Parliamentary committee considering the proposed legislation for fixed-term Parliaments. “Parts of the government’s plans to bring in fixed-term parliaments are vulnerable to legal challenge” was how the BBC reported it.

It is understandable why that got the headlines, but lurking in the detail are important questions about how Parliament operates and whether its administration is competent. Jack’s evidence, and concerns about the legislation, really fall into three parts.

First, as might be expected from an official whose role is deeply embedded in Parliamentary culture, he raised issues of principle about whether Parliament should makes its own actions subject to decision by the courts. Passing a law about fixed-term Parliaments would do that, as having a law means people can take legal action over whether or not it is being followed.

ParliamentThe supremacy of Parliament is a core part of our political heritage and, when it was a question of Parliament or hereditary monarchy, a highly admirable cause to fight for. However, the dangers of applying it too widely in the modern age were amply illustrated by the massively (and rightly) hostile reaction to the attempt of some MPs to argue that they could not be prosecuted over their expenses because the courts should not be able to interfere with the workings of Parliament in this way. Myself, I am quite happy with the idea that Parliament agrees to subject itself to the courts as and when appropriate.

Second, because of his defence of Parliamentary supremacy Jack argued instead that fixed-term Parliaments could be introduced by amending the House of Commons’ standing orders. Committee chairman Graham Allen neatly highlighted the problem with relying on standing orders:

The advantage of a statute is that the Government must go through what they think is a very long public process of producing a Bill, whereas Standing Orders can be amended by a Government majority in the House, pretty much on a couple of days’ notice. These things could therefore be changed despite the view of many parliamentarians, whereas if it is a statute, at least it’s out there and we can see what they are up to … Standing Orders are regularly suspended by Government, probably on a daily basis. The 10 o’clock rule is just nodded through as a suspension, so what’s in the Standing Orders, unlike the statute, can be altered very rapidly at the whim of someone like the Chief Whip.

In addition, as Nick Boles MP highlighted, legislation requires the consent of both Houses of Parliament; standing order changes can be rushed through the Commons.

Jack Straw subsequently talked up Malcolm Jack’s criticism saying he had “severely criticised” the Bill. However, to argue that fixed term Parliaments should be fixed in a way that makes them extremely unfixed isn’t a criticism that stands up in my book. Both the Jacks are wrong on this.

But thirdly, Malcolm Jack expressed a range of concerns about how in practice the vote to terminate a fixed-term Parliament – which under the bill requires a two-thirds majority – might be conducted.

TelescopeReading his evidence on this rather reminded me of the witnesses who used to argue against the secret ballot to nineteenth century Parliamentary committees. Those witnesses managed to come up with all sorts of administrative concerns as to why the secret ballot could not work, including a detailed discussion at one point about how people with telescopes could spy on voters from afar as they completed their ballot papers.

The lack of telescope-based voting fraud shows how misplaced those arguments were; they were not reasons against the secret ballot, they were simply details that had to be covered when introducing it.

So too with Jack’s arguments, including his concerns that there are many means by which votes are not properly conducted at present, such as Tellers leaving the voting lobbies before all MPs have passed through. Under legislation for a fixed-term Parliament, an improperly conducted vote might be open to legal challenge he warned.

However, if one of Parliament’s top officials really thinks its votes are so unreliable that there is an actual danger they could not stand up to a court scrutiny, that should be an urgent call for reforming how those votes are conducted, not an excuse to avoid any chance of such scrutiny.

Read more by or more about , , , or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds and Parliament.


  • A bit off topic Mark, but is anyone publishing a post with reference to Bob Russell?

  • Paul McKeown 14th Sep '10 - 12:57pm

    Thanks, a useful and informative piece. Would you consider sending it to the Guardian, for instance, for publication? A mini-series on the government’s constitutional reforms might be a useful counterweight to Jack Straw’s opportunist oppositionism.

  • Paul McKeown 14th Sep '10 - 1:06pm

    @Joe Jordan

    A written constitution against which the actions of government and all public bodies can be tested, including the laws that they legislate is, naturally, desirable, although, I don’t see it happening any time soon.

    As to the objection that a future parliament could rescind any law set by a previous government, surely that applies even to the most basic underpinnings of our democracy? Yet successive governments have happily kept their fingers off our democracy. Surely this would apply to a parliamentary fixed term, too? And surely the Lords (or the future Senate or whatever it will be called) would hold the Commons to that, anyway?

  • I can remember having to advise Parliament’s legal counsel on the standard length of time required for a transformative order to pass. (I’d rung them to find out, but ended up having to explain it to them using Erskine May!) In fact, Erskine May + confident quotation can probably get almost anything done in parliament – I have little faith in many people beyong perhaps David Howarth and David Heath on this issue…

  • Hang on a minute, Mark Wright. Surely the high profile case about elections being stolen at the moment are, firstly the Oldham and Saddleworth one, and secondly, the Waltham Forest one?

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.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

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


Recent Comments

  • Martin Gray
    Ultimately - you cannot sustain the current levels of immigration, & solve the housing crisis simultaneously...Sadly too many progressives are infatuated wi...
  • Nonconformistradical
    "Blaming them for promising amenities (to get planning permission) that they then find endless excuses to delay, however…" A key issue and the one which resu...
  • Joe Bourke
    The Renew Europe demand that the EU Council and Commission take responsibility and finally take further steps to apply Article 7, which could lead to the remova...
  • Cassie
    @Simon R – “I don’t think we can blame developers for building the houses they think they can most easily sell for a profit.” I, for one, wasn't blamin...
  • Joe Bourke
    Vernon Bogdanor has an interesting analysis of the rise of the Reform party in contrast with the SDP of the 1980s