Does delaying the State Opening of Parliament matter?
Sarah Richardson |
On 13 September 2010, the Coalition government announced a change to the expected date of the State Opening of Parliament from November 2011 to May 2012. This means that parliament is expected to be in session for a record length of two years. Sir George Young, the leader of the House of Commons, argued that 'it would be appropriate to move towards five 12-month sessions over a parliament, beginning and ending in the spring. This has the advantage of avoiding a final fifth session of only a few months, which restricts the ability of parliament to consider a full legislative programme.' The Labour opposition in contrast called the proposed modification 'an abuse of power'. But does the change of date really matter?
The State Opening of Parliament is a largely ceremonial occasion when the three elements of the crown-parliament come together demonstrating the symbolic role of the monarch as head of the legislature, executive and judiciary. The rituals and pomp of the occasion were revived by Edward VII following years when his mother, Queen Victoria, only intermittently attended the opening of Parliament. Edward VII perhaps viewed the increased pageantry as providing an essential role for the monarch in a modern democracy. The postponement of quaint traditions such as the searching of the cellars, the taking a government whip hostage to ensure the safe return of the monarch, the summoning of the Commons and the delivery of the speech to the monarch in a silken bag may not appear constitutionally significant. However, from a historical perspective the government's announcement is worth of note.
As there is no written constitution, the Westminster Parliament relies upon custom and precedent to provide the checks and balances to safeguard democracy. The annual parliamentary session, usually begins in October/November unless there is a general election. This gives a fixed period of around a year for the government's legislative programme to be enacted. The Coalition government by doubling this period have granted themselves more time to ensure that the challenging measures they announced in the Queen's Speech of May 2010 make it on to the statute book. The extension of the session reduces opportunities for the Opposition, headed by a new leader, to challenge the government's programme. The announcement also assumes that the bill proposing fixed-term parliaments will become law. Sir George Young's statement to the House makes clear that the government have introduced this new timetable in order to schedule the Queen's speech in line with the expected five-yearly May elections. However, the Fixed-Term Parliaments Bill has only reached its second reading and is not yet law. Therefore this measure appears somewhat premature.
The length and frequency of parliamentary sessions has always been a sensitive issue. The Bill of Rights in 1689 sought to ensure that Parliament met regularly in reaction to the suspension of sessions by the Stuart monarchs. Thus any interference with the customary date of the parliamentary session arouses unease and suspicions of impropriety. This is compounded by the fact that this change was not debated by the Commons but merely announced in a written form by the government.
The complexities of the UK Constitution in its 'uncodifed' form mean that even minor changes such as the one proposed may have unintended consequences. The delicate balance of power between the monarch, the Commons and ministers depends upon an adherence to convention and historical precedent. Tinkering with the length of parliamentary sessions for government advantage may lead to a backlash from a House of Commons uneasy with this flexing of executive muscle. The apparently minor modification of process thus has wider constitutional implications.
Please note: Views expressed are those of the author.About the author
