When UK’s Conservative negotiating team sat down to sort out a coalition on the day after the 2010 general election, our Liberal Democrat counterparts were quite clear about one thing they needed above all else: a fixed-term parliament. They feared that if the Tories became more popular and the Liberals less so — which did indeed happen — then we could pull the rug from under them at any time by calling another election.
Since the very same thought, more wickedly, crossed our own minds, we could understand why they needed this and we agreed to it. The result was the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, removing the power of the prime minister to dissolve Parliament earlier than the end of a five-year term.
That, in turn, means the next election cannot be held before May 2020 unless two thirds of the House of Commons agrees to it or a vote of no confidence in the government is carried and no alternative government can be formed in the following 14 days.
Like many innovations in Britain’s unwritten constitution, this major change was a response to the needs of the time. The new rule was introduced to suit the junior coalition partner, even though it was not in the main governing party’s manifesto.
Six years on, the circumstances are very different and it is time to question whether a fixed parliamentary term is in the interests of the country as we withdraw from the European Union — an even bigger event than forming a coalition government.
Were the Fixed-term Parliaments Act not in force, the case for a general election this spring would be very strong indeed. We have a new prime minister and Cabinet facing the most complex challenges of modern times: Brexit negotiations, the Trump administration, the threat from Scottish nationalists and many other issues. There is no doubt that they would be in a stronger position to take the country through these challenges successfully if they had a large and decisive majority in the Commons and a new full term ahead of them. Furthermore, they would have a very good chance of securing such an outcome.
Not in a strong position
An election now would follow the rare experience of a by-election gain for the government and would catch the Labour Party in its worst condition since the early Thirties, and with its least credible leader ever. But it is difficult to call an election, assuming that Labour turkeys are unlikely to vote for a very early and particularly juicy Christmas. An imminent election is therefore not on the cards, but the question still has to be asked as to whether the fixed-term restriction on the centuries-old power of the prime minister is appropriate for the circumstances of the next few years.
All through the difficult and momentously important talks with Brussels which are about to begin, the European Union negotiators will be conscious that the government is not in a strong position in its own Parliament.
That knowledge will allow them to adopt a harder stance than otherwise. Already they will have noted that they only have to refuse to do an early deal on the rights of British nationals in the EU for the House of Lords to vote to guarantee the rights of EU nationals in Britain unilaterally.
The government should be able to overcome the difficulties involved in passing the legislation to invoke Article 50 and commence the process of leaving the EU. Yet any observer of the debates on this can see that two years from now, when ministers either return with a deal or to explain why no deal could be done, real trouble is coming. Any deal is bound to be full of compromises that one group or another in Parliament finds difficult to stomach. Both houses hold many members who would like to wreck even a successful outcome. And just as the courts ruled that starting this process required legislation to be passed, do not rule out the possibility that they will come to the same conclusion about ending it.
Could the Fixed-term Parliaments Act be repealed? Yes it could, if Conservative MPs were determined and disciplined about doing it. Then the prime minister, who faces formidable obstacles, would have her hand strengthened, particularly if the voters remain on her side.
Such change can only be made with almost unanimous Conservative support. The chances of that would have to be calculated. If asked, I am sure ministers will say that they have no plans to introduce a change. However, quietly and carefully, it is worth thinking about. In 2019, trouble is coming.
— The Telegraph Group Limited, London 2017
William Hague is the former foreign secretary and a former leader of the Conservative Party.
