Legislation (Territorial Extent) Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Friday 9th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 3, page 1, line 2, leave out ‘publishing draft’ and insert ‘presenting’.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 6, page 1, leave out lines 7 to 10 and insert

‘“legislation” means primary legislation, secondary legislation or amendments to primary legislation’.

Amendment 8, page 1, line 16, leave out ‘draft’.

Amendment 14, title, line 1, leave out

‘preparing draft legislation for publication’

and insert ‘presenting legislation’.

[Helen Goodman]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this Bill and to the amendments standing in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). The long list of amendments that we have tabled demonstrates that this is an extremely badly drafted piece of legislation. As I am sure Government Members know, Her Majesty’s Opposition oppose the Bill. It is ill-conceived, badly drafted and full of technical problems, and we do not accept its underlying principles. For a start, it does not make sense to look at draft legislation only. Most Bills do not appear in draft at all, so this would catch only a tiny number of the Bills that the House considers.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

The hon. Lady and her hon. Friend tabled 14 amendments and one new clause, only four of which have been selected for debate. Does that not suggest that her amendments and new clause were badly drafted as well?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that we do not discuss the selection of amendments.

[Helen Goodman]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I would like to point out some of the problems with what has been suggested by the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), whose Bill this is. Every piece of legislation has a territorial extent clause at its end. Let us consider the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, which is currently in Committee. The hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) has been chairing some of its sittings, so he knows what I am talking about. Clause 117 states that the Bill, as a whole, applies to England and Wales, and then explains which clauses apply more widely. There is no lack of clarity about the legal status of Bills before the House.

Clearly, the hon. Lady’s underlying concern is that people are taking views on legislation that affects parts of the United Kingdom beyond those in which their constituencies are located. If that is her concern, she should have presented a Bill making that case. However, she has presented a different and flawed Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman]

As the hon. Gentleman says, arrangements are in place for legislation that takes effect predominantly in Scotland. However, the Government seem to be rushing legislation through so fast that it is quite possible that the Speaker and his offices might not have time to take all these complex matters into account. That is a problem with the way this Government are ramming through legislation on the NHS and, if I might say so, this Legal Aid—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are meant to be discussing the amendments, but we are getting drawn elsewhere by certain Members. I am sure that, with the hon. Lady’s experience, we can stick to the amendments.

[Helen Goodman]

I stand corrected. I am sorry, I was seduced by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Oliver Heald).

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Lady is being tempted all the time. She must not give in to that temptation. Let us stick to the amendments.

[Helen Goodman]

Let me turn to the parts of the Bill that relate to the financial implications, which we also looked at in—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Lady must not make a Second Reading speech. Let us deal with the amendments that are before us.

[Helen Goodman]

One of the problems with looking at draft legislation rather than legislation in its final form is that it is not possible at that stage to say what the financial implications across the United Kingdom might be. The Government would be forced not simply to identify the territorial extent of a Bill, as they do currently, but to look at the differential impact of clauses that apply across the United Kingdom. For example, some legislation could be applicable throughout the UK but have a greater effect in some places than in others. Let us take social security as an example. If unemployment is higher in Wales than in England and changes are made to the rate of jobseeker’s allowance, the impact in Wales will obviously be different from the impact in England. I am sure that that is not what the hon. Lady intends.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Leigh]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. These amendments are really technical amendments, to insert “presenting” rather than “publishing”, but the hon. Lady is very much turning this into a Second Reading debate. She is not speaking to her own amendments.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

That is for the Chair to decide, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. I would point out that I am allowing a little bit of latitude and, in fairness, the hon. Lady has been brought back to the point, to which, in general, she is sticking at the moment. I will decide from the Chair how far we go.

[Helen Goodman]

I do not wish to delay the House any further on these technical amendments. I think I have made my point perfectly clear. I do not intend to push the amendments to a vote, but I hope that I have demonstrated a small number of the problems with this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I do not want to go over old intra-Scottish debates, but I recollect the hon. Gentleman and some of his colleagues voting on a Thames tunnel Bill. Its connection to Scotland seemed remote. However, let us leave that aside. I do not know whether he participated in the Olympics Bill—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are drifting once again. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not be tempted further and will stick to the amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

Does my hon. Friend agree that if some Members believe that there are now two classes of MP, perhaps we should have two classes of pay and expenses so that we are not taking huge amounts of taxpayers’ cash?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Those points do not need to be answered. We must get back to the amendments.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I am sure that all Members on both sides of the House work as hard as they can for their constituents.

I have tried not to be diverted too much from the amendments, although, understandably, there have been a number of attempts to persuade me to deal with wider issues. Amendment 6 is at least an improvement on a bad provision, which not only implies that there will effectively be two Governments and two classes of MP, but does not make clear whether it applies only to primary legislation or, in addition, to secondary legislation, amendments to primary legislation and, indeed, private Members’ Bills. The amendment does at least try to make a bad Bill more consistent, and I hope that the House will support it. In fact, I hope that the entire Bill is thrown out on Third Reading, or following its passage through the House of Lords.

There is an important debate to be had on this issue. The amendments are intended to highlight some of the difficulties raised by the Bill, but I feel that if we are to have a debate on law-making in relation to MPs with constituencies outside England when it comes to decisions that apply only in England, we should debate that issue in its generality. Let us have a proper debate on whether there should be some matters on which MPs outside England should not vote, rather than cloaking that issue in discussions about a certificate. Let us deal with the real issue, rather than with what I consider to be a bogus issue and a diversion from the real concern that I accept is felt by some Members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

If the hon. Gentleman had held his proverbial horses for another 15 seconds, he might have heard the answer to that question.

Like many other Members who are present today, I am new to the House, but I understand that in previous Parliaments there was a gap between the Government’s publication of a draft Bill and their presentation of that Bill, and it is hugely regrettable that that does not happen now. I take the word of some of my more esteemed and knowledgeable colleagues who have served in earlier Parliaments, but I gather from them that it was pretty much standard practice. There would be a period of—wait for it—consultation on the Government’s draft proposal, involving Members, outside experts, and other interested parties. The Bill subsequently presented by the Government might differ significantly from the draft version. I assume that the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) is satisfied with that answer to his question, and that I can now move on.

The second issue that concerns me is the fact that a Bill whose title remains the same may contain clauses that are very different from those on which the Government originally consulted, or which did not exist at that stage. I can think of no better example than the Scotland Bill, which is currently being dealt with in the other place. It is now a very different Bill from the one that existed during the consultation phase, and contains a different set of powers and clauses. I believe that, in such circumstances, the draft stage of a Bill could be described as a false piece of advertising. A Secretary of State might, in good faith, publish a statement—I will not be drawn into discussing why it would be the Secretary of State rather than the Speaker, as was the case with the Scottish procedure that was mentioned before, but I am led to believe that many Secretaries of State in the present Government do act in good faith: the Minister told me that that is the case, and I never have any reason to doubt the Minister—to the effect that a Bill applied only to England, without recognising the obvious knock-on effects that it would have in Scotland. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) listed all the Bills that he said did not apply—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is going to speak to the amendments, but he should not be drawn into areas on which discussion is not allowed. I intend to allow a little bit of latitude on Third Reading, and I would not want the hon. Gentleman to use up his Third Reading speech at this stage.

[Thomas Docherty]

I assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that there is no danger of my using up my Third Reading speech at this stage, but, if I heard you correctly at the time, you allowed an exchange to take place about the Bills listed by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire—and there were some nods of agreement on the opposite Benches—in whose passage the Scottish National party and others had decided not to participate. Those parties, however, did decide to participate in debates on Bills that Government Members—and, crucially, a Secretary of State—might consider not to apply to Scotland. The most obvious example was the tuition fees legislation. I will not repeat the arguments contained in it, but when it was going through the House of Commons in, I believe, December, not only the SNP but the Welsh and Irish nationalists and the Ulster Unionists took part in the debate. A Secretary of State who may not know that that will happen when he or she publishes a draft Bill for consultation will surely, once the presentation stage is reached, have a much clearer idea of whether his or her statement was accurate, and whether Scottish Members should be allowed to participate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

The Minister refers to this being very complex. Why, therefore, did the Government not set up this commission a year ago? Will he apologise to the House for the fact that the Government did not set it up a year ago, and will he confirm that the reason why it was not set up was because it was blocked by the Liberal Democrats?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. As Mr Chope should know, we must keep our powder dry on that point until Third Reading. I ask the Minister not to be tempted.

[Mr Harper]

I am often tempted by my hon. Friend, but I will resist that particular temptation, at least until Third Reading.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

If my hon. Friend will permit me—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Once again we are being tempted to address matters that should properly be discussed on Third Reading, and I know that the Minister does not want to do that.

[Mr Harper]

You are always very quick to keep Members in order, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I was about to resist the temptation offered by my hon. Friend and instead ask him if he would permit me to come back to the point. I do not have to ask him now as you have instructed me not to address it now. We touched on this point in the written statement I tabled yesterday, and I will flesh it out on Third Reading.

Returning to the points the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife made on the amendments, we will not support them because they widen the scope of the Bill significantly and are therefore not just technical in nature. It is helpful that the Opposition have tabled them, because they have demonstrated, as I started to say, why this legislative approach is likely not to be the solution to the West Lothian question—this was the point suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh). If the West Lothian question is about how this House legislates, any solution will probably have to be carried out through Standing Orders so that this House remains in control of it rather than the courts being permitted to start interfering, which is the last thing we want.

Having dealt with the amendments as a whole, let me turn now, briefly, to amendment 6, which defines legislation as both primary and secondary legislation. It is worth making the point that there is no need to include secondary legislation because it is made by virtue of the powers given to Ministers in primary legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guto Bebb]

The thinking of the Labour party in Wales seems to be that it is perfectly fine for Welsh Labour Members to be Ministers and make decisions that affect England, but that it is not acceptable for the Prime Minister to appoint an English MP to serve in Wales. It is that dual standard that annoys people. Ultimately, we have to deal with the issue, because the threat to the Union will come not from Wales but from disgruntled members of the electorate in England. That is the issue that we must face.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am sure that an occasional mention of the Bill would be helpful to everyone.

[Thomas Docherty]

You are absolutely right, Mr Deputy Speaker. An issue that has not quite been covered in the Third Reading of the Legislation (Territorial Extent) Bill is the question of what is in the minds of members of the Welsh Labour party. It is not for me to comment—that is one of the benefits of devolution—but it is valid to ask what would happen if a Secretary of State signed off a Bill but effectively said, “This is my Bill; I am not going to vote for it.” In December, as the Liberal Democrats raced through the 17 different positions that they tried to adopt on tuition fees, at one point there was a suggestion that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills would not vote on his own legislation, which would have been completely absurd. Under the Bill—and this is an issue that the commission must address—we must consider what would happen if, as we have seen in the past, a Secretary of State introduces legislation in which they do not have any constituency interest within the four nations of the United Kingdom, never mind the question of how we define England.

I must challenge the hon. Member for West Worcestershire on what she said about understanding England. As hon. Members can tell from my accent, I did not have the privilege of a Scottish education. I was brought up in west Cumbria, and I can assure the hon. Lady that the people of west Cumbria do not believe that she understands their problems or what is best for them. I am pretty sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) would suggest that the Conservative party does not have a Scooby about the issues in the north-east of England. I am pretty sure, Mr Deputy Speaker—of course, you are entirely impartial—that other constituencies in the north of England would suggest that Conservatives do not understand them. Equally, I have heard Government Members suggest that the Labour party does not understand parts of their country. The notion that we have a single, homogenous England in all its pleasant greenness with a perfect political structure is wrong. Regrettably, that goes back to the argument about regional assemblies.

In the past few days, we have dealt with infrastructure projects. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) and others have discussed the Olympics, and we have discussed Crossrail in the past. The Crossrail Bill contained many provisions that related purely to London and nearby railway lines, yet it underwent a contentious, long, laborious process. It took two years, I think, to introduce that Bill, with the support of Members from Worcestershire, Dunfermline, Berwick, Edinburgh and other areas. That was the right thing to do but, regrettably, under the Legislation (Territorial Extent) Bill—and I suspect that this will be something that the commission will examine—such issues would not be dealt with. If there is a proposal to bulldoze large parts of London, the decision on whether that is right or wrong should, under the logic of the argument that the hon. Lady and other hon. Members have sought to generate, be made by London MPs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

I apologise. It just goes to show the benefits of living in a United Kingdom; otherwise I would not be learning that geography lesson.

Under that rule, the Speaker makes the decision. You would, Mr Deputy Speaker, pull me up if I followed the example of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and gave seven centuries’ worth of history on the role of the Speaker and how it has changed—and, indeed, the excellent role of the Chairman of Ways and Means and how it has changed in the past 700 years. The Speaker’s role is to be an impartial judge. To give a simple example, let us say for the sake of argument that Mr Murdo Fraser becomes leader of this new party. If he wants a name for a party that supports the Conservatives at that level, that backs Tory policies but is not officially Tory, I must counsel him that the title “Liberal Democrats” has already been taken, so he will have to think of another one. If Mr Fraser’s new party were to win 27 of the 51 or 52 seats that there will be in Scotland at the next general election, but thanks to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), we were to sweep to power at the next general election, it might well be possible—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am sure the hon. Gentleman wants to come back to the Bill and mention that a little more. We are drifting all round the country from Doncaster to the history of the Chairman of Ways and Means. I can assure him that the post is not 700 years old, but we do not want to get into a debate like that, do we? We want to stick to Third Reading, as I know the hon. Gentleman is now going to do.

[Thomas Docherty]

If I had been able to finish the sentence, I was about to say—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman should not tempt me. I do not need to wait for the last sentence. I was listening to the previous 20 sentences, which also led me to believe that the hon. Gentleman had gone off the Bill.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your kind words, as ever.

Under the powers in the Bill, it is possible that one of my right hon. Friends, as Secretary of State for Education, might seek to exclude the 26 or 27 Scottish progressives or whatever they are called from legislation in order to get a majority. It is possible that the reverse might be true. There are Bills or parts of Bills that apply to Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales, where the current Government—not under the leadership of the Minister or his colleagues, but under some other Secretary of State—might seek to use this Bill to exclude Members unfairly in order to get legislation through. That is why the idea that, under the Bill, the Secretary of State should be the person who decides which pieces of legislation are English only, Welsh only or English and Welsh only is both ludicrous and loaded.

It is disappointing that the Bill does not seek to answer the question how Select Committees or oral questions will work. It is reasonable for Government Members to take a great interest in Scottish questions. We are always touched by the number of Conservatives who table questions relating to Scotland, but the Bill does not seek to deal with the fact that English MPs are scrutinising—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. As hon. Members know, the Bill is not about questions. It is about legislation, and we will stick to speaking about legislation on Third Reading.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. Obviously, when at Question Time we are debating proposed Government legislation, it will still be perfectly in order, as I understand it, for Members on both sides of the House to challenge the Secretary of State about that, even if it does not cover their territories. The same is true of Select Committees, which do an excellent job of examining legislation as it is going through. I have the privilege of serving on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which is an interesting Committee not only because of the policy matter, but because some of that applies to the whole United Kingdom and some to devolved areas, such as Scotland. The lines are blurred.

We have been having a big debate about the future of fisheries policy and the common agricultural policy. That will require legislation in future. I know, for example, that some Members on both sides are in favour of pulling out of the common fisheries policy. I will not be drawn into that argument, but the Select Committee will clearly consider the issue. Does that apply to Scotland, to England or to the United Kingdom as a whole? I do not see how the Bill, as well meaning as the hon. Member for West Worcestershire intended it to be, deals with how we can still scrutinise matters through Select Committees and put together reports that could be fairly damning, but not carry out similar scrutiny on the Floor of the House.

The Bill could have another effect which I am sure was never intended. It is my understanding that if a major piece of legislation falls in this place, that is regarded historically as a vote of no confidence in the Government. There is a perfectly reasonable suggestion to be made that as a result of this Bill, a health Bill, for example, which was a substantive piece of legislation and did not command the support of the membership of the party in England, could be defeated. Would that therefore automatically be seen as the trigger for a no confidence motion? That has not been dealt with adequately in the Bill. I hope the Minister will give us some guidance on his thinking and whether the West Lothian question could tackle the issue.

Parliamentary Commission for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)]

I beg to move,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will appoint Dame Julie Mellor to the offices of Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following motion, on the remuneration of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England:

That, in the opinion of this House, the salary paid to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England should be £152,000 a year, a sum within the range of salaries payable to Permanent Secretaries in the civil service as required by section 2(2) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, as amended by the Parliamentary and other Pensions and Salaries Act 1976; and that this should be subject to (a) any relevant increase for Permanent Secretaries recommended by the Senior Salaries Review Body and (b) after the end of the current pay freeze, 1 per cent. annual uprating in lieu of performance pay; and considers that in future, and subject always to the statutory requirements, the remuneration of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England should be agreed by the Prime Minister and the Chair of the Public Administration Select Committee in advance of the recruitment process, and reported to the House, prior to the House being invited to agree to an humble Address on such an appointment.

[Mr Hurd]

The first motion asks that an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will appoint Dame Julie Mellor to the offices of Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England. The second motion sets out the detail of her remuneration, and goes on to state that, in future, the remuneration for that role should be agreed between the Prime Minister and the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee before the start of the recruitment exercise. Dame Julie will be appointed for a non-renewable fixed term of seven years.

First and foremost, I wish to record the Government’s gratitude to Ann Abraham, who has undertaken the role of Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman with great commitment, independence and integrity. She has done much over the past nine years to increase the understanding of the work of ombudsmen.

The Government are also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and other members of the Public Administration Committee for their role in the selection of Dame Julie. In a departure from previous practice, the House has led on the appointment process, working in close co-operation with the Government. The Government are pleased that the new arrangement for the appointment of the ombudsman has worked well and delivered an excellent candidate in Dame Julie. The appointment process has included the PAC undertaking a pre-appointment hearing with Dame Julie. The recommendations contained in the Committee’s two reports, published following that hearing, form the basis of the Government’s two motions and I commend them to the House.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this we may take Lords amendments 2 and 9.

[Mr Harper]

I should like to make it clear that I am proposing that the House disagrees with their lordships on amendments 1, 2 and 9, and I shall set out the reasons for that. For the benefit of Members who have not had the chance to study the amendments in detail, they provide that the provisions in this excellent Bill be subject to a sunset clause after the next general election. Each subsequent Parliament would have the choice of whether to be a fixed-term Parliament or not. The Government want to oppose the amendments because we think that they fundamentally undermine the purpose of the Bill, which was welcomed by, among others, the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of this House. I see a member of the Committee, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) sort of agreeing with me on the Opposition Benches.

In bringing forward the Bill, we are seeking to put in place a provision that we hope will become an established part of our constitutional arrangements—namely, that fixed-term Parliaments for this UK Parliament become the norm, just as they are for local government, for the devolved legislatures and for the European Parliament. Two of the most important things in the Bill—in the form that the Government would like it to take—are, first, the proposal for an ability to deny the Executive the ability to choose a date for a general election to suit their own ends and to ensure that the Prime Minister gives up that power for the first time, and, secondly, to deliver certainty on how long a Parliament will last, which will benefit not only parliamentarians but the public.

[Mr Harper]

I was not in the slightest disappointed that this House and the House of Lords—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We must stick to the amendments.

[Mr Harper]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. My short answer is that I was not disappointed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Walker]

Will the Minister tell the House where that desire for public certainty in relation to a five-year Parliament comes from? Does he think that there would be huge upset in 2015 if people were suddenly to discover that the Parliament might run for only four years—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman could let us know which part of the amendment he is referring to.

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. The polling that has been carried out suggests that the public support fixed-term Parliaments. Indeed, if we think back to the previous Parliament, there was a general sense, both in the House and among the public and commentators, that the “will he, won’t he” debate about whether the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) would call an election on becoming Prime Minister was not helpful to good Government or to good democratic accountability. It will be helpful to have greater certainty, as that will benefit us all. Let us ask ourselves this question: if the Bill became law, and fixed-term Parliaments became the norm, would any Minister realistically be able to come to the Dispatch Box and suggest with a straight face that we should change the position and give the power back to the Prime Minister to hold an election at a time of his choosing to suit his political party? Would anyone take that proposition seriously? I suggest that they would not.

[Mr Cash]

Has it occurred to the Minister that part of the problem with this wretched Bill is that it is trying to organise things to suit the requirements of this coalition? Decisions on the future should actually be down to the public at large, and if they want to get rid of a Parliament, they will do so in their own way. That is where the question of a confidence motion starts to kick in.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. We are not dealing with the whole Bill; we are dealing with the amendments. I am sure that the Minister will take that into account in his answer.

[Mr Harper]

To be fair to my hon. Friend, Mr Deputy Speaker, he was speaking to the amendments that we are discussing. He made the assertion that our proposals would suit this particular Government during this particular Parliament, but that is simply not the case. If the Prime Minister wanted to ensure that this Parliament ran for the full five years and that the general election took place on 7 May 2015, he would need to do only one thing—namely, not approach Her Majesty the Queen to seek a Dissolution before that date. We could thereby achieve a five-year Parliament for this Parliament, but we want to make a change to our constitutional processes—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) does not agree with it—to remove from Prime Ministers the ability to choose the date of a general election.

The second part of my hon. Friend’s question effectively suggested that a sunset provision would be a good thing. Under our democratic system, the public elect Members of Parliament for a term. At the moment, they do not have a choice about when the general election will be; the sole decision about that sits with the Prime Minister. The Bill seeks to give that power to Members of this democratically elected House. I would have thought that my hon. Friend, as a champion of parliamentary control of the Executive, would welcome that proposition.

Public Bodies Bill [Lords]

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Andrew George]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. There should be only one person on their feet. If the shadow Minister does not wish to give way, the hon. Gentleman should recognise that fact.

[Tessa Jowell]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) did not catch my eye—

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. As many hon. Members want to catch my eye, I am reducing the time limit to six minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alun Cairns]

May I return the hon. Lady to her point about funding? She claimed that S4C had suffered a 94% cut, but if we are to have a sensible debate about this important issue, should we not recognise the reality, which is that it will be subject to cuts of 6% per annum for the next four years? That is much better than what is happening to many other public sector departments, and should be sufficient for it to deliver its objectives. Does the hon. Lady regret the fact that over the last 13 years there has not been adequate scrutiny—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I believe that the hon. Gentleman hopes to catch my eye later. He cannot make his speech now.

[Susan Elan Jones]

The hon. Gentleman could have made a much better intervention about funding. If the intervention that he made was intended merely to back up his party’s crib sheet, I do not think that that was very sensible. He could have pointed out that yesterday the Department said that it would remove the reference to S4C from schedule 4 and give it a clause of its own, but, unbelievably, no additional funds and no commitment to funding after 2015.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Williams]

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was present when my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) mentioned the office of the chief coroner. I refer him to my right hon. Friend’s remarks.

I think we should remind ourselves of the consensus that exists. It is clear that setting about getting rid of a number of public bodies created by primary legislation raises significant challenges, and that the only way of making that achievable was to create a streamlined model. However, it is undoubtedly true that the Bill as originally presented was over-zealous. It was entirely unacceptable that the remaining bodies listed in schedule 7 could be added to other schedules by order. That is now rightly not the case, and the Bill is more suitable for the purpose for which it was intended.

I welcome the addition of clause 10, which creates a need to consult the person or office holder to which the proposal relates as well as persons

“representative of interests substantially affected by the proposal”.

That, I believe, needs to be reinforced.

In my constituency in the west of Wales, 60% of residents speak Welsh as a first language. S4C and plurality in Welsh language broadcasting is vital, and concerns remain about the model currently proposed and the impact that it would have on, in particular, S4C's governance and independence. I do not start from a “no change” position. At a time when other broadcasting bodies face significant cuts, S4C cannot—and, for that matter, does not—expect to be treated differently from other broadcasters. It has shown a willingness to discuss a new model with the DCMS and the BBC, but fundamental differences remain between the BBC and S4C.

The two basic concerns relate to long-term funding and guarantees of funding after 2015, which has been partly addressed—I will qualify that later—by yesterday's written statement, and to S4C’s remaining independent. Yesterday's written statement confirmed that an amendment would be introduced that would put in statute the level of funding for S4C that is required for it to meet its statutory remit as a Welsh language broadcaster. I await the text of the amendment, because it must pave the way for a formula set by the Government and not the BBC, providing parity with other broadcasting organisations.

It is also vital for S4C to remain financially and operationally independent, and not to be run by the BBC. The DCMS has made clear that it expects S4C to be independent, and has given a number of undertakings to guarantee that. It would be helpful if the Department also made abundantly clear that the BBC must not have its personnel in S4C's management team, and that S4C must remain in charge. Discussions are taking place to find a suitable model, but it is hard not to conclude that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has put all its eggs in one basket in an attempt to meet the time frame for this Bill, instead of addressing fundamentally the challenges of supporting S4C in an age when digital services have led to an increasingly fragmented market and at a time of reduced public expenditure. This looks rushed, and it would surely be better to carry out a full review of how S4C should be constituted, with the aim of finding a long-term solution, whether that be a model of full funding from Westminster, a partnership model along the lines proposed currently, albeit with a stronger guarantee of independence, or even a channel funded by the Welsh Government in the event of broadcasting being devolved.

All four party leaders in Wales wrote to the Culture Secretary in support of such a review. The Select Committee on Welsh Affairs report on S4C stated that this haste was “regrettable”, and the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport said that it found it

“extraordinary that the Government and the BBC, which is fiercely protective of its own independence, should find it acceptable to agree a change in the funding and governance arrangements for another statutorily independent broadcaster, S4C, without the latter having any involvement, say or even knowledge of the deal until it has been done.”

It strikes me that this is the respect agenda in reverse.

It is of great concern that very little consideration seems to have been given to an holistic way forward. On a matter as important as Welsh language broadcasting, that is obviously not good enough, and I would welcome it if the Minister provided an assessment of the current situation regarding negotiations over the future of S4C, and say whether the Government would consider removing the provisions relating to S4C until all the possible alternatives have been pursued. In the other place, a great deal of concern was expressed about Channel 4’s inclusion in the Public Bodies Bill and the uncertainty that created. Channel 4 has now been removed from it, and I believe S4C should also be removed.

Members on the Government Benches have spoken about Citizens Advice and the new functions it would assume from Consumer Focus. Again, in Wales this issue is particularly pressing because the current structure of Citizens Advice does not lend itself to Welsh governance. There is a separate structure in Scotland, which allows for Scottish matters to be looked at differently, but that is not the case in Wales, where policy work is led from London. Consumer Focus Wales wants an amendment led by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to give Assembly Ministers the power to determine the structure they want—a power not to acquire new powers, but to determine a Welsh structure.

I have focused on the concerns that still exist, but I do not want that to detract from what is a necessary measure. The Bill represents a step forward, but there are considerable—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Time is up.

House of Lords Reform

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I will drop the time limit to five minutes. It would be helpful if hon. Members shaved a little off their speeches—there is a load of Members to get in.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I hope that, in a few weeks, the House will be able to rejoice that Gaddafi has gone. Few dictators have committed so many acts of psychopathic wickedness over such a long period of time. Many hon. Members will know of his atrocity at Abu Salim prison in Tripoli, where he marched 1,270 prisoners into a compound, locked the gate and instructed his soldiers to open fire from the courtyard rooftops. The gunfire and grenades rained down for more than two hours until all 1,270 people were dead. But that was in the dying days of John Major’s Government in June 1996, and Britain took no action.

I welcome resolution 1973. To take action now is right, but it would be disingenuous to claim that action was not possible without Britain’s military participation, involving just three planes. The question is not whether action against Gaddafi is right but whether it is we who have the primary duty and responsibility to take it. It is the families of many of those slain 15 years ago at Abu Salim who began this revolution in Libya, inspired by others across the region who had dared to rise up and demand justice and dignity from their leaders. I praise their courage, but I recognise that this is a civil war in Libya. In that respect, it is categorically different from other conflicts involving ethnic cleansing and religious domination by one faith over another. This is neither Bosnia nor Rwanda. UN resolution 1973 has authorised international interference in a civil war in which there has been no genocide and no ethnic cleansing: no Halabja there.

The resolution purports to allow no more than the humanitarian protection of civilians, but all acknowledge that the Libyan population will not be secure from harm until the country is rid of Gaddafi. Coalition leaders, when asked whether Gaddafi was a legitimate target, have been equivocal in their response. In such circumstances, the rose of humanitarian protection begins to smell of regime change, and by that name it is not so sweet. This became apparent to Amr Moussa over the weekend when he said:

“What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians”.

Perhaps the Arab League was too optimistic, because that is precisely what is likely to happen, if not by British and coalition missiles then by the rebels. It is naive to think that we can stop one side fighting in a civil war and not expect the other to take advantage. In a civil war, the tragedy is precisely that civilians are killed, if not by one side, then by the other. I do not believe that the international coalition will be even-handed in stopping rebel forces advancing in the same way.

The Prime Minister said in his statement on Friday that if we will the ends, we must also will the means. To will the means, however, does not entail the proposition that we must be the means. Many people in the UK are asking, “Why does Britain always have to get involved?” In two days, we will hear the Budget and the Chancellor will explain to the country why it is necessary to cut thousands of jobs to tackle the deficit. Those men and women who have been made redundant will no doubt sympathise with the Libyan people, but they will ask, “What has this got to do with Britain?” North Africa is not on our borders. It is not in our direct sphere of influence. Libya poses no direct threat to the UK, and we have no historical responsibility as the former colonial power, so why are we spending millions of pounds on cruise missiles, and endangering the lives of British soldiers to implement the resolution? It is ironic that many people asking these questions will be among the 17,000 military personnel who were judged to be surplus to requirements in last October’s defence review, when the Government cut £4 billion from the defence budget.

There is no contradiction in welcoming the enabling authority given by UN resolution 1973, which allows those who have a direct interest or who have historical responsibilities as the former colonial power to act in Libya and, at the same time, to insist that we have no such direct interest or responsibility. Today, we are debating this after the event—we have taken that responsibility before a vote in the House, yet no one in government has sought to explain the policy of the rebels, on whose side we now find ourselves. We know that they are against Gaddafi, and that is a good start, but we certainly have no knowledge that they intend to replace him with an open, tolerant, liberal democracy. The whole of north Africa and the middle east are changing more rapidly than at any time since Suez. Shi’a minorities in Yemen and Bahrain have been shot or silenced by an invasion from Saudi Arabia. Iran is known to be eager to get involved. Egypt and Tunisia have effected home-grown revolutions and even Syria is experiencing serious internal tension.

In that extraordinary context, the Government have judged it right and in Britain’s interest to involve our forces in military action. I pray that in a week’s time Gaddafi is gone, and I pay tribute to the valour of our armed forces, but I believe that the Government were wrong to ask this—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I call James Morris.

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, and everyone who, with patience and painstaking fortitude, has brought the UN resolution to fruition. I pay tribute, as other hon. Members have, to our armed forces who are implementing that resolution. That type of work is what protecting British national interests is all about. As other hon. Members have said, every generation needs to define what is in Britain’s national interest. In the modern world, our national interest encompasses security, humanitarian issues and commercial interests. It demands that, as a nation, we are prepared to build alliances, to contemplate military co-operation with other nations, and to deploy our unique soft and hard power assets. We are doing so in relation to Libya. We were right to act, but we were right not to act alone.

It was right to agree a resolution with clear parameters for engagement and with broad-based support, which means that, in this context, the international community can act without the United States necessarily taking the lead. It is an example, too, of Anglo-French co-operation, with Britain and France being seen to be in the lead. It confirms that we do not live in a unipolar world. Britain, in the modern world, with a new definition of our national interests, must be as flexible and co-operative as possible to protect its national interest.

As other hon. Members have pointed out, recent experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan have given the British people good grounds for caution about our country taking military action and being involved in foreign intervention. When I speak to my constituents in Halesowen and Rowley Regis, they are concerned about our commitments in the world. They have become weary in relation to Iraq and Afghanistan because they saw no clarity about the missions or their end point. We must not make the same mistake again with Libya.

It is vital that we avoid the tendency that has characterised some of our military interventions in the recent past to use over-optimistic language and to engender inflated expectations about what we can achieve and, in some contexts, a downright delusion about the lengthy effort required to achieve a successful outcome when we make the grave decision to intervene in the affairs of other countries. That mindset and language characterised our initial involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Our new modern national interest demands that we are pragmatic, realistic and straight with the British people about what we are trying to achieve through the resolution. We must see the debate tonight, and the United Nations resolution, in the context of Britain adopting a broader strategy towards the middle east, a region which in recent times has been subject to turbulence and unpredictability, forcing on Britain a posture of ambiguity in foreign affairs, and obliging us to live with that ambiguity and make decisions within that context.

Although we are taking military action under the UN resolution, we must also be determined to use our influence through alliances and through our soft power assets to help build functioning civil societies and democracy in the countries of the middle east. It is in our national interest to utilise those soft power assets simultaneously with making a focused decision to take the action that we are taking in Libya.

The resolution that we are debating tonight is clear and pragmatic. It has broad-based support and I believe it is in Britain’s national interest to take action against Gaddafi now, but at the same time to be mindful that in doing so, we are making a grave decision that must be combined with Britain using its soft power assets throughout the middle east to promote democracy and build civic society.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I inform the House that I will take one more six-minute speech, then I will drop the time limit to four minutes to try and get in as many speakers as possible.

Big Society

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 28th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Just before I call the next speaker, may I say that 15 Members still wish to catch my eye and that their speeches are going to have to finish just before 9.35 pm?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I have eight speakers to get in and there are 34 minutes.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords message

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

A message has been received from the Lords on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. Under the Order of the House of 15 February, any message from the Lords relating to the Bill may be considered forthwith, without any Question put. The text of the Lords insistence on amendments 1 and 8, and reasons, is available in the Vote Office as Bill 152. A paper is also available in the Vote Office setting out the motion, which I now call on the Minister to move.

Lords message considered forthwith (Programme Order, 15 February).

Clause 1

Referendum on the alternative vote system

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Mr Brennan, the Minister has given way once and he has said that he is not going to give way again.

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

A related point made in the other place was the argument that Lord Rooker’s threshold was appropriate because the question being decided in the referendum was constitutionally significant. My argument is that we are having the referendum because this is an important issue—it is about how we are elected. It is not right that we make that decision, because the people should decide how Members are elected to this House.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 15th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to consider amendment (a) and Lords amendment 8.

[Mr Harper]

The first amendment to be moved on Report in the other place by the noble Lord Rooker and agreed to by a majority of just one vote provides that:

“If less than 40% of the electorate vote in the referendum, the result shall not be binding.”

The Government oppose the inclusion of this amendment in the Bill on two key grounds. First, it goes against our view that people should get what they vote for, and, secondly, it introduces the perverse consequences associated with thresholds.

Before going into those arguments, however, I should remind colleagues that we have debated the question of whether to impose a 40% turnout threshold before, when an amendment to this effect was tabled on Report by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash). I note that he has tabled an amendment today that seeks to reintroduce his proposal from Report, turning Lord Rooker’s proposal into a straightforward turnout threshold by mandating the Minister to repeal the AV provisions in the event that turnout is less than 40%. It is worth recording that, when this House voted on that proposal the first time round, it was resoundingly rejected by 549 votes to 31. On that occasion, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), speaking for the Opposition, said that he did not think it appropriate to bring in a threshold.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

This whole argument is against a motion that was not passed in the other place. It is against one that was defeated where there was a threshold that amounted to a veto on the result if the turnout were below that threshold. Does the Minister not accept that this Lords amendment is completely different in character? All it does—although it is a very important “all”—is to ensure that if there is a turnout of less than 40% in total, the matter will come back to this House. To pick up the Minister’s example, if, say, there were a 39% turnout and 75% of that 39% had voted in favour of a change in the voting system, I cannot conceive that this House would fail to endorse it. On the other hand, if there were a 25% turnout and if it were approved by only—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

In fairness, many Members want to contribute to the debate. Can we please come to the end of the question?

[Mr Straw]

In those other circumstances, the House would surely think again. Is that not a very sensible way of proceeding?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jenkin]

I echo the point made by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) that the amendment only requires the House of Commons to think about a poor turnout and how to respond to the result under such circumstances rather than automatically triggering a small yes vote with a low turnout and a new voting system. Does the Minister not recognise the irony of his position? Here we are looking at a referendum that might introduce a new voting system under which a Member elected to this House will be required to get 50% of the votes cast, yet we cannot even put in a threshold to require a 40% turnout to give credibility to the result of a referendum. What serious constitution around the world does not have some form of threshold and why should we not introduce one in this case?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Let me be quite honest: a number of Members are still seeking to catch my eye, so we need shorter interventions.

[Mr Harper]

I will take your injunction as implicitly indicating that I should give way to fewer of them.

On the effect of AV, it is not, of course, the case under our system of optional preferential voting that it is necessarily 50% of the votes cast that counts; rather it is 50% of the vote remaining in the count. If lots of people choose not to accept a preference, AV does not imply that a Member of Parliament must get more than 50% of the vote. I simply disagree with my hon. Friend. He will know that I am as unenthusiastic about the alternative vote as he is, but I think the right thing to do, which is the Government’s policy, is to have the referendum so that he and I can go out and argue for a no vote, while other colleagues wanting a yes vote will make that case. We can then both seek to get as many people as possible to vote on our behalf. The Government’s view is that if there is a turnout threshold, it will provide an incentive for those who favour a no result to stay at home. I do not think that we should be encouraging that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that over the past few weeks we have had to ask questions of the Government in relation to Home Office statements not being made to this House. We have strong indications this evening that tomorrow the Home Office is to make announcements on immigration policy that affect the immigration cap. We believe that the press lobby have been informed; indeed, the Minister responsible has offered an off-camera briefing to the press on the issues involved. How can we take this issue forward when it seems that the Home Office has now become a serial offender?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I am grateful for having been given notice of that point of order. There is no information about a Government statement tonight. Those on the Treasury Bench will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said. Advice could be taken from the Table Office, and I suggest that he seek it there.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Thomas Docherty]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman seems to be claiming that the Prime Minister is using Downing street for commercial purposes. Is it appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to make such a serious allegation against his own Prime Minister?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I think we all know that that is not a point of order.

[Nick Boles]

I do not want to stray from the subject of the new clauses and the amendments, but I should point out something that seems permanently to escape Opposition Members, which is that we live in a time of austerity, and our Prime Minister is doing everything he can to maximise revenue to the Exchequer and minimise expense, hence the reasonably priced wine being served and the—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. We are straying from the subject of new clause 4. The price of drinks in Downing street has nothing to do with the topic under discussion.

[Nick Boles]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was in danger of being wholly distracted from my point, which is that my love for the British constitution, such as it is, is greater even than my love for a glass of reasonably priced white wine served at No. 10 Downing street, and there is no part of the British constitution for which I have a greater passion than that nebulous concept of Prorogation. It is the subject of the stories that my parents read to me by my bedside when I was a child. I agree that it sounds like a sad childhood, but such it was.

The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made an ingenious argument about the dangers of this power remaining with the sovereign. He suggested that a Prime Minister presiding without a secure majority and having lost a vote of no confidence in this House might advise the sovereign to prorogue Parliament to avoid the possibility of Parliament passing a vote of confidence in an alternative Government and thereby bringing about an election, rather than the installation of a new Government. I am second to none in my passion for the nebulous concept of Prorogation, but I am no lawyer, unlike the hon. Gentleman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Boles]

The question that has been asked does not relate to the clause or the amendments and I defer always to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, as to whether my comments would be relevant, although of course I want to be courteous to my hon. Friend.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I think we will stick with new clause 4.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. My understanding of the procedures of the House is that Members need to refer directly to the proposals on the amendment paper, not rehash or rehearse a debate that took place previously, and at some length.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

First, it is for me to decide whether a Member is straying out of line. I would say to Mr Byles that he has to keep in order on new clause 4. He has drifted a little, but he keeps coming back to the matter of four years or five. I am sure that he has taken those remarks on board, and that we can continue.

[Dan Byles]

I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have almost come to the end of my scene-setting remarks and will get into considerably more detail on the amendments very shortly. Before I do, I want to refer to confidence votes and thresholds, which have already been mentioned this afternoon, including by Labour Members.

Although we are moving to a system of fixed-term Parliaments, it would clearly be unusual and wrong to put in place a system that did not allow for early elections, in one of two scenarios: if the confidence of the House could not be held by a party leader, or if there were an emergency of some sort, or another exceptional circumstance that required an early election in the national interest. I believe that the Bill as it stands, unamended—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman should be relating his remarks to new clause 4 and the amendments grouped with it. We do not need to drift back to other subjects; we have gone beyond them. I remind him that we need to stick to the subject in hand.

[Dan Byles]

I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I apologise. [Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I say to those on the two Front Benches, can we please continue?

[Dan Byles]

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I shall move on to new clause 4, which sets out new rules for the Prorogation—I have as much trouble as the hon. Member for Rhondda with that word—of Parliament. It would repeal the Prorogation Act 1867, which provides the power for Her Majesty to issue a proclamation for the Prorogation of Parliament. I think I got that right.

As the House is aware, Prorogation marks the end of a parliamentary Session and is the formal name given to the period between the end of one Session of Parliament and the state opening of Parliament, which begins the next Session. The parliamentary Session may also be prorogued before Parliament is dissolved and a general election called.

It is worth reminding ourselves that the term “prorogation” is derived from the Roman concept of prorogatio. In the constitution of ancient Rome, prorogatio was the extension of a commander’s imperium beyond the one-year term of his magistracy. Prorogatio developed as a legal procedure in response to Roman expansionism and militarisation.

In the context of the Westminster system, Prorogation or Dissolution of Parliament on the final day of the Session originally, according to the House of Lords Library, comprised four principal elements. First, the Speaker made a speech mainly concerned with the Subsidy Bill, which he had brought up from the Commons. This was followed by a speech from the Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper replying to the points made by the Speaker and expressing thanks for the Subsidy Bill. Royal Assent was then given to the Bills passed by both Houses. Finally, the Lord Chancellor, in obedience to the sovereign’s instructions, either prorogued or dissolved Parliament. The sovereign was customarily present on those occasions, and from the 17th century onwards, usually made the speech before Prorogation or Dissolution.

Hon. Members will, I am sure, be fascinated to learn from the Library’s excellent note that

“In the early nineteenth century the prorogation was still accompanied with considerable ceremony. Thus in 1815 the Prince Regent rode in the State Coach with a cavalry escort through St James’s Park to the Palace of Westminster, and on his arrival was announced with a salute of cannon.”