With the general election drawing ever near, John Ludlow tracks the progress of major Bills – and finds that several are bound to fall by the wayside

The approach of a general election has a highly disruptive effect on life at Westminster. The minds of MPs are increasingly focused on issues in their constituencies, while Commons speeches begin to read more like manifestos.

But the biggest casualty (apart from civility) is the government’s legislative programme, which becomes a kind of political fall-guy at this time. This is because major public Bills usually require at least six months to complete their parliamentary passage and so a May or June election inevitably leaves many high and dry.


The widely expected election date of 5 May requires the dissolution of Parliament around 11 April, barely four-and-a-half months into the session. On this timescale, it may be surprising that any Bills get through at all.


But some will. Certainly those measures that were introduced in 2003/2004 and which have been allowed to straddle two adjacent sessions are well placed to get royal assent. This applies to the Constitutional Reform Bill and the Mental Capacity Bill, both highly welcome measures.


Also, a number of Bills introduced early in this session should pass into the statute books, such as the uncontroversial Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Bill. Others, such as the Inquiries Bill and the Disability Discrimination Bill, have completed their passage through the House of Lords and can now be fast-tracked through the Commons where the government has most leverage.


But the situation is somewhat different where Bills have their final stages in the Lords, particularly those that have yet to have their committee stage. In the upper house, the government has no power to fast-track Bills or to guillotine debate at all. Rather, to get measures through, ministers must ‘horse-trade’ with the opposition parties, offering concessions in return for last-minute support.


But it is difficult to see what the government could possibly offer peers on the Identity Cards Bill, for example, a measure that is widely opposed and that has clearly had inadequate debate and scrutiny.


Much the same could be said of the Serious Organised Crime and Security Bill. The issue of incitement to religious hatred continues to face criticism from all sides – highlighted by comedians who fear being prosecuted for religious jokes – while there are also several question marks over the extension of the powers of arrest. Perhaps the only way to get the Bill through will be to decouple part 1 (which sets up the agency and is relatively uncontroversial) and simply jettison the rest. We will have to wait and see.


The Drugs Bill is also in jeopardy, since the proposal to extend drug testing by the police has raised many concerns. These require fuller debate and with only a week of parliamentary time left after the Easter recess, it is difficult to see where the time will come from. However, The Clean Neighbourhoods Bill may be saved, since most of its proposals have been broadly welcomed.


Of course, it does not help when an extra, unplanned Bill takes up valuable time. The Prevention of Terrorism Bill has been necessitated by the law lords' judgment on the legal basis for detention without trial for terrorist suspects in Belmarsh Prison, which required the government to change the law by 14 March. But had ministers responded earlier to concerns, they would not have had to route-march this Bill through as though it were an emergency measure.


As it is, further problems have been created by the announcement by the home secretary that concessions would be made in the Lords but not in the Commons. This annoyed MPs, who came very close to defeating the government on the key amendment to the Bill. Nor did it appease peers, who seemed intent on amending the Bill out of all recognition. In the end a deal was struck, with the legislation going on the statute book, but to be reviewed by MPs next year.


But to some, perhaps cynical, commentators, none of this really matters since, they argue, the government has been grandstanding on the terrorism issue all along and is more than happy to see its flagship Bills fall if the opposition parties can then be blamed and the moral upper hand can be gained.


That may or may not be true. However, it is certainly true that if Labour wins the general election, then any Bills it failed to get through this time can simply be reintroduced in June. In that sense, nothing will have been lost, though some parliamentarians (and lobbyists) might legitimately ask what this last session has been for.


John Ludlow is head of the parliamentary unit at the Law Society