House of Commons · Bill Debate
13 September 2021 · 10 other contributors
Opened by Chris Bryant Lab Rhondda
Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.
Chris Bryant raised concerns about repeal of the fixed-term parliaments act 2011 bill - clause 3, motion to allow debate on amendments concerning prorogation in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.
Key points
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.
Opened the debate
The hon. Member for Rhondda proposes allowing the Committee to consider amendments relating to Prorogation, arguing that it is a cognate matter subject to selection by the Chair and that such discussion should be allowed under Erskine May. He highlights concerns about the misuse of Prorogation as seen in previous cases and suggests that the Bill's clause 3 could inadvertently render Prorogations non-justiciable.
The hon. Member for Weaver Vale questions whether the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 addresses Prorogation and challenges the relevance of debating this matter in relation to the Bill.
The hon. Member for North Dorset suggests that concerns over Prorogation are now obsolete and argues that it has not historically been a problematic issue.
The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth discusses the irregular manner in which Prorogation was used previously, emphasising that future Governments might attempt similar actions.
The hon. Member for Dundee East questions whether debating the new clause would disrupt the programme for the day and render subsequent discussions null and void.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh South West expresses concern over the lack of remorse shown by the Prime Minister regarding previous misuse of Prorogation and supports a measure to prevent future dubious use.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North calls attention to the rapid filling of Government Benches, suggesting it indicates intention to vote against the motion and curtail debate on Prorogation.
The Minister for Constitution states that the Bill concerns Dissolution, not Prorogation, and argues against expanding its scope to cover Prorogation. She asserts that the debate is inappropriate in this context.
Supports the motion of Chris Bryant, stating that it is required for this House to debate prorogation before going to the unelected Chamber.
Argues against the Minister's position, stating that Government Ministers are responsible for deciding when such legislative measures should be debated. Recalls previous constitutional crises in 2019 and 2010.
Supports Chris Bryant, citing the need for a Minister for the Constitution to decide on debating important constitutional matters like prorogation. Highlights previous constitutional crises.
Government Response
The Minister opposes the motion, arguing it would improperly expand the Bill's scope and misinterpret its provisions. She maintains that Dissolution and Prorogation are distinct matters.