Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022

Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022
Sodacan · CC BY-SA 3.0 · source
Title	Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022
Territorial extent	United Kingdom
Enacted by	Parliament of the United Kingdom
Royal assent	2022
Status	Current

Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that restored to the Monarch of the United Kingdom the prerogative to dissolve Parliament of the United Kingdom on ministerial advice, reversing provisions of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. The Act interacts with constitutional practice concerning the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, the Crown and conventions rooted in the Glorious Revolution and the Act of Settlement 1701. It occasioned debate across political actors including the Conservative Party (UK), the Labour Party (UK), the Liberal Democrats (UK), and devolved institutions such as the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd.

Background and legislative context

The Act must be understood against the passage of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 under the Cameron–Clegg coalition, which removed the royal prerogative power exercised by monarchs like Elizabeth II and restored fixed electoral timetables similar to practices in the United States and Canada. Critics cited events involving the 2017 United Kingdom general election, the 2019 United Kingdom general election, and political crises tied to the Brexit process, including the roles of figures such as Theresa May, Boris Johnson, David Cameron, and Jeremy Corbyn. Debates invoked constitutional authorities like A. V. Dicey and events including the Parliament Act 1911 and the Parliament Act 1949. Academic commentary from institutions such as the Institute for Government, the Constitution Unit, and scholars referencing the Bill of Rights 1689 informed Parliamentary scrutiny.

Provisions of the Act

The Act repealed the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 and provided that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom may request dissolution from the Monarch of the United Kingdom, restoring prerogative language reminiscent of precedents linked to William IV and constitutional practice surrounding the Cabinet of the United Kingdom. It specified procedural arrangements for the timing of elections and transitory provisions addressing fixed-term arrangements that had been scheduled under the 2011 Act. The text referenced mechanisms analogous to royal proclamation practice seen in earlier statutes like the Representation of the People Act 1983 and preserved statutory functions vested in bodies such as the Electoral Commission (United Kingdom) and returning officers in United Kingdom parliamentary constituencies.

Parliamentary and constitutional implications

Restoring the prerogative altered the balance between Parliamentary statute and royal executive practice, provoking analysis comparing the Act to the Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Settlement 1701, and prerogative reform debates conducted in the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The Act engaged personalities and institutions including the Attorney General for England and Wales, the Lord Chancellor, and committees such as the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. Commentators compared its implications with constitutional instruments from the Commonwealth of Nations, and cited case law from courts including the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and the European Court of Human Rights concerning separation of powers and prerogative limits.

Passage through Parliament and Royal Assent

The Bill moved through stages in the House of Commons and the House of Lords, debated by figures such as Rishi Sunak, Keir Starmer, Nicola Sturgeon, and peers crossbenching with members linked to groups like the Constitutional Research Council. Amendments were discussed in committee and report stages, with procedural parallels to notable legislative contests such as those over the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the Sewel Convention. The Bill received Royal Assent from Charles III following the established ceremonial processes of proclamation and signature by officials including the Privy Council and the Lord Privy Seal.

Reactions and political impact

Reactions spanned the political spectrum: proponents in the Conservative Party (UK) argued alignment with the prerogative traditions of monarchs like George V and pointed to practicalities evident in the 2019 United Kingdom general election; opponents in the Labour Party (UK) and Liberal Democrats (UK) warned of potential partisan advantage and referenced comparative critiques from scholars at the Royal Society of Arts and the Hansard Society. Devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland signalled constitutional concerns, invoking intergovernmental mechanisms such as the Joint Ministerial Committee. Civil society responses came from groups including Liberty (organization) and the Electoral Reform Society.

Legal challenges and judicial consideration

The Act prompted legal commentary and potential challenges on grounds related to prerogative limits and statutory interpretation, drawing on precedents such as R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and R (Miller) v The Prime Minister which examined prerogative use and prorogation. Litigants and academics considered remediable issues for the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and the High Court of Justice, with potential reference to instruments like the Human Rights Act 1998 and jurisprudence from the European Court of Human Rights. Judicial scrutiny focused on the compatibility of restored prerogative powers with Parliamentary sovereignty as articulated in foundational cases and texts including Entick v Carrington.

Category:United Kingdom Acts of Parliament 2022