The Dissolution of Parliament: The Crown Prerogatives (House of Commons Control) Bill 1988
| Date | 01 November 1989 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1989.tb02630.x |
| Author | Robert Blackburn |
| Published date | 01 November 1989 |
THE DISSOLUTION
OF
PARLIAMENT: THE CROWN
PREROGATIVES (HOUSE
OF
COMMONS CONTROL) BILL
1988
PROPOSALS to reform the law and practice relating to the dissolution
of
Parliament have been recently put by Mr. Tony Benn M.P. In
the early
1980s
he lectured and spoke
of
the need to make wide-
spread constitutional changes in Britain, and in two publications in
particular of which he was author or co-author he addressed prob-
lems posed by the present method of dissolution. In “Power, Parlia-
ment and the People”’ he argued that the House
of
Commons
should secure to itself
full
control over all such Crown prerogatives.
Shortly afterwards this principle was adopted collectively by his col-
leagues in the Campaign Group
of
Labour MPs and in
1984
their
paper
Parliamentary Democracy and
the
Labour Movement
gave as
its first item in a list
of
twenty recommendations for parliamentary
reform that “all crown prerogatives to be subject to the decision of
the House
of
Commons, including powers
of
dissolution before the
end
of
a Parliament.”2 This was then manifested in
a
full legislative
proposal, the Reform Bill
1985,3
repeated again a few years later in
the Crown Prerogatives (House
of
Commons Control) Bill
1988.4
Both were introduced by Mr. Benn under Standing Order
58
but
received only formal first readings and did not proceed to a debate.
However they stand on record as representing a new strand
of
con-
stitutional thought on the royal power
of
dissolution and deserve
attention.
Three changes were suggested. First, the Queen should not be
advised to dissolve Parliament until the House of Commons had
voted upon and approved the time
of
dissolution. As drafted in
clauses
5(3)
and
2
of the respective Bills, “such advice shall be con-
firmed by the House
of
Commons before it is transmitted to Her Maj-
esty.” Second, the adviser to the Queen on dissolution matters would
become the Speaker
of
the House
of
Commons. His responsibility
would be simply to advise the Queen what had been voted upon by
motion in the Commons. In the drafting
of
the
1988
Bill, “the
Speaker
of
the House
of
Commons shall have the sole responsibility
for advising on the dissolution
of
Parliament”. The
1984
Bill’s draft-
ing was different only in speaking
of
the power to advise being “trans-
ferred” to the Speaker. Finally, the maximum duration
of
any
Parliament would be reduced from five years to four. At clauses
7
and
3
respectively, “the Parliament Acts shall be amended to substi-
’
New
Socialist,
SeptJOct.
1982, p. 9.
p.
12.
HC
[1984-851 152.
HC
[
1987-881 117.
837
To continue reading
Request your trial