Select committee: Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee

Recommendation 7

Sixth Report - The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 Published 15 Sep 2020 Paragraph 50
Recommendation (the committee's words)
The question of whether or not the dissolution prerogative can be restored is a complex one, which involves fundamental constitutional principles. It clearly was the intention of the Government in 2011 to abolish the prerogative, but the wording of the Act is less conclusive on this point. Some also hold the view that the fact of abolition does not even matter. As all the evidence to this inquiry makes clear, this is a highly contested issue. There are also questions as to what exactly would be revived and for example what the legitimate expectations of the Sovereign as a constitutional backstop would be. This is of particular concern in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision about the prerogative power of Prorogation. It is clear that attempting to revive the prerogative would invite the courts to make the final decision on these issues. These are core political and constitutional questions that neither Parliament nor government should abrogate to the courts. Even if there is a desire to return to the old system for dissolution and calling elections, it would be better setting these arrangements in statute rather than engaging in an unnecessary attempt to revive a prerogative which could have considerable unintended consequences and implications.

From: Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Sixth Report - The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 (HC 167), paragraph 50, 15 September 2020

Government response

The government responded to the whole report on 9 December 2020 (deadline 15 November 2020).

Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.

The government says it is repealing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act through a draft Bill that revives the prerogative powers over dissolution, and it disagrees with several of the Committee's conclusions, including on the Commons setting election dates.

  • On the prerogative, it recognises "a debate" about whether it can be revived without legislation, and the draft Bill makes express provision to revive it. The government agrees that its exercise should not be "abrogated to the Courts", and the draft Bill contains an ouster clause.
  • It states that it "does not accept" that the power to set the precise date of the election should be given to the House of Commons or be subject to parliamentary approval.
  • It "does not agree" that a residual dissolution power gives the incumbent government an electoral advantage, and it "does not share" the Committee's assessment that the Act is compatible with the confidence principle.
  • On review and scrutiny, a Joint Committee has been set up, and the government says it "shall of course carefully consider" its conclusions on confidence votes. On prorogation, it says the issue is "separate" from the Act and the draft Bill is narrowly focused on dissolution.

Read the government's response ↗ Report an error