As Parliament ends to make way for the build-up to the General Election, the government has lost ten of its Bills. John Ludlow describes the last-minute horse-trading involved in pushing through a legislative programme

The three or four days at the end of a Parliament – between the election announcement and dissolution – is hectic and not a little confusing.


For the government, this is the ‘wash-up’ period, when it tries to get as much of its legislative programme through as possible, and preferably unscathed. For the opposition parties, this is the time for deals – where they can wring last-minute concessions out of ministers as the price of their support.


The opposition parties have a great deal of leverage in this horse-trading, particularly the Conservatives, who can always call on a large contingent in the House of Lords to block measures and delay progress if necessary.


Indeed, the government has had to make significant concessions to the Tories on two of its flagship Bills to secure passage. On the Gambling Bill, this has meant reducing the number of ‘super-casinos’ from eight to one ‘prototype’, while the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill had to be completely shorn of the provisions dealing with incitement to religious hatred.


Leader of the House Peter Hain made it clear that ministers agreed to this last change very reluctantly. Not only did he pledge that the government would reintroduce the provision ‘early in the next Parliament’ if Labour were re-elected, but he rounded on those MPs and peers who scuppered a reform ‘that would have given particular comfort to the Muslim community’.


This highlights one of the dangers of forcing last-minute concessions from the government – it leaves opposition members open to charges that they are blocking vital public-interest reform.


This was the spin that Home Secretary Charles Clarke put on the Identity Cards Bill, when it became clear that no deal was possible and the measure would be lost. He squarely blamed the opposition parties for ‘killing’ a bill that, he argued, would help tackle illegal immigration, organised crime and terrorist activity. He also confirmed that its reintroduction would be ‘an early priority after the election’.


It was perhaps a surprise that the Charities Bill was lost, since it received so much scrutiny in Grand Committee in the Lords. It is doubtful whether it will be brought back swiftly in the event of a Labour victory, since other measures are expected to take priority. The same may be true of the Consumer Credit Bill and the Criminal Defence Service Bill, both of which have been quietly dropped after making slow progress. The latter did not even receive its second reading, despite being introduced last December – surely one of the mysteries of this parliamentary session.


The Equality Bill, on the other hand, is likely to be reintroduced quickly after 5 May in the event of Labour continuing in power. This measure – which will set up a single equality and human rights commission – was only lost this time around because it had been introduced barely a month ago and had made too little progress.


Other measures fared better in the last-minute scramble, including the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill, where there was already broad support for the powers it gives to local authorities to tackle low-level crime.


The Disability Discrimination Bill, Inquiries Bill and Drugs Bill also passed with little amendment, after having all their final stages taken in one day.


At one point it seemed that the Mental Health Bill, which has had such a difficult passage over two sessions, would fall at the final hurdle, but that too passed on to the statute book. The chequered Constitutional Reform Bill also passed, though the Conservatives immediately pledged to repeal those sections setting up the supreme court if they are elected on 5 May.


The government even managed to get its Finance Bill through, though only after it was shorn of more than one-third of its original clauses, including the controversial tax-avoidance provisions. A further Bill is expected after the election, when it can be more fully considered.


All in all, the government will have lost ten or so of its Bills by dissolving Parliament earlier this month. However, only one – the Identity Cards Bill – can truly be described as a flagship measure. And even here, given the political capital the government will try to make out of the opposition defeating a ‘crime and security’ measure, it may be that ministers will lose very little sleep over this ‘loss’.


If Labour does win on 5 May, ministers will have the opportunity to reintroduce all the measures dropped in the last few days. However, it is more likely that at the Queen’s Speech, scheduled for 17 May, they will want to present a fresher face and a programme that includes new, radical measures rather than Parliament’s unfinished business.




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