Parliamentary ping-pong

British political term

Parliamentary ping pong is a phrase used to describe a phenomenon in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, in which a bill appears to rapidly bounce back and forth between the two chambers like a ping pong ball bounces between the players in a game of table tennis.

If one House insists on its amendments, and the other House insists on its opposition thereto (a "double insistence"), the Bill is deemed as having been rejected. However, if each House continues to propose new amendments to amendments, consequential amendments and amendments in lieu, the process repeats, so the Bill bounces back and forth between the two chambers like a ping pong ball, until one side backs down or a compromise is found.

The debates in each House are usually scheduled weeks or months apart. However, in certain circumstances when there is time pressure this can change. Usually the time limit is imposed by the end of the Parliamentary session when all parliamentary business, including incomplete Bills, is ended and must start again from scratch in the next session. This usually occurs at the State Opening of Parliament in November; parliament can continue working on the previous year's business up to the night before. Another instance is the wash up period of a few days between the calling of a general election and the ensuing dissolution of parliament. More rarely, the time limit may be imposed by outside events, such as an impending deadline from a court order, judicial review, or events in foreign affairs.

An extreme example of parliamentary ping pong involved the Prevention of Terrorism Bill 2005. Over the course of 30 hours on 10–11 March 2005, the bill was considered five times by the Lords and four times by the Commons. The need for legislation, and associated time pressure, arose from the court case A v Secretary of State for the Home Department. Ten individuals suspected of terrorism had been detained indefinitely under Part IV of the Anti terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. Nine of them appealed against their imprisonment; in December 2004 the Law Lords (then the court of last resort in the UK) granted the appeal, on the grounds that Part IV was incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. The suspects were not freed immediately, as existing powers allowed terrorism suspects to be detained up to 90 days without charge. The judgment effectively set a deadline of 14 March 2005 for Parliament to pass alternative legislation which could be applied to the suspects without violating their human rights.