That's what I wanted to get at. Were they deliberately trying to improve their efficiency in terms of how much they could deal with at the same time without giving things up? One could argue that one of the downsides of recognizing two days as one is that legislation can be rammed through, even though it would have met the requirements of an extra day given the fact that it has now been compressed, so you lose something in that kind of process. My assumption was that they were trying to provide a parallel process to save time, and that is clearly their main motive.
On February 16th, 2016. See this statement in context.