I think the case is really overwhelming that Parliament should have a minimum of three months to look at the standing proposals of the executive before the start of the fiscal year. There are a number of ways in which you can do that. Different parliaments have done this in the past or they have changed the system to achieve this.
Several legislatures have changed their fiscal year. This is quite easily done. It's not very hard to do. The U.S. Congress did that in the mid-1970s. Sweden did it in the mid-1990s. Germany did it a couple of times in the 20th century. These are not uncommon things. Each time the objective was to make sure there was enough time for Parliament to review the budget before the fiscal year started.
One option could easily be to say that the fiscal year will start on the first of July. You could maintain all your existing procedures and shift the fiscal year by a few months. This is what a number of countries have done in the past to achieve this. That is one option.
A second option, I would say, is maybe more gradual or incremental. This is the one that Professor Franks mentioned, which is an attempt to bring forward the tabling of the proposals. Some countries have tried this. We tried it in South Africa when I worked here. There the tabling was similarly late, as in Canada, and it is now taking place a few months earlier. But it is still not enough to ensure three months' scrutiny prior to the beginning of the fiscal year.
These are two options. In my opinion, it is—let me call it this way—a no-brainer. It's something that should be done.