Categories: Andrew Coyne, Capital Read

Mother of prorogations

by Andrew Coyne on Friday, January 8, 2010 7:16pm - 47 Comments

How Parliament is prorogued in Great Britain:

The ending of a Parliament (rather than a dissolution which occurs before an election) is carried out by royal command. It takes the form of an announcement made on behalf of the Queen to both Houses of Parliament. The ceremony is performed in the House of Lords with the Speaker of the Commons and MPs also present…

Queen Victoria was the last monarch to personally prorogue Parliament in 1854; ever since the message has been delivered on his or her behalf by the Royal Commission. The commission is made up of the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Speaker and the leaders of the different parties in the Lords; Labour, Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.

The ceremony begins when the Royal Commission, dressed in parliamentary robes and – for the men – hats, enters the chamber and sits on a bench in front of the Throne, behind the Woolsack. The Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod is commanded by the Lord Chancellor to “let the Commons know that the Lords Commissioners desire their immediate attendance in the House to hear the Commission read”. Black Rod heads to the House of Commons, where, as is customary, the door is slammed shut in his face. After knocking three times on the door with his ebony rod, the door is opened. Black Rod will proceed into the chamber to inform MPs that their attendance is required.

Led by the Sergeant at Arms and the Speaker, MPs troop down to the other end of the Palace of Westminster to hear the Queen’s message. MPs proceed as far as the bar in the House of Lords, with a great deal of bowing and doffing of hats… The Lord Chancellor then begins proceedings. It starts with the appointment of the Commissioners read by the Reading Clerk…

Royal Assent is formally announced to all legislation not already passed this session. This ceremony is one of the oldest to take place in Parliament. It involves the Clerk of the Crown announcing from the Opposition side of the table the name of each Act that is to be passed. Then, at each Act announced, the Clerk of the Parliament turns to face MPs declaring ‘La Reyne le veult’ – Norman French for ‘The Queen wishes it.’

After all bills have passed Royal Assent, the Lord Chancellor reads a speech from the Queen reviewing the past year. Like the Queen’s Speech at State Opening, this is written by the Government and reviews the legislation and achievements of the Government over the past year. Parliament is then officially prorogued. Immediately following the Lord Chancellor’s speech, MPs return to the Commons where the Speaker, sitting in the Clerk’s place at the table, reads the ‘Terms of Commission’ (the terms by which Parliament is prorogued)..

Parliament then prorogues until the day named for the State Opening by the Queen. Finally, in one of the nicest moments in the parliamentary year, MPs file out past the Speaker and shake his hand.

How Parliament is prorogued in Canada:

The Prime Minister phones the Governor General.

Tags: Black Rod, Parliament, prorogation

More by Andrew Coyne

http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

and generally crazy hats too. traditional pomp and circumstance and crazy hats: two musts for any contemporary democracy!
http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

"and crazy hats"

I love the hats. My fav hats are the ones women wear to wedding or other big day out – what with elaborate colour/feathers, women look like a bird has landed on their head.

And result was about what I was expecting with Cesc missing from action. I just finished watching match and I wonder when Wenger will get rid of Almunia, he has to be one of the worst goalkeepers in the Premiership.
Sigh

I think you may be right. When I read the sentence, I surmised it meant that royal assent was given to those bills which had not received it (this being a more ceremonial process in Britain than here).

It seems unlikely that the British Parliament would grant such a potentially dangerous power to the crown that the alternative interpretation of the sentence suggests.

http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

perhaps. though, i find it more odd/unlikely that they would introduce a special element in the ceremony to deal with bills that had already received all elements of passage save royal assent.

given that royal assent is often granted the same day and given that the timing of prorogation is set solely by the government in consultation with the Crown it is highly unlikely that any bill would ever actually be in a circumstance where it is in awaiting assent after the request for prorogation is made. even if there were last minute bills passed, why would the government not simply deliver the bills for signature and then prorogue?

Sigh

But…

"When Royal Assent has been given to a Bill, the Speaker in the Commons and the Lord Speaker in the Lords announce the Royal Assent at a suitable break in each House's proceedings.

The exception to this procedure is at prorogation, when Black Rod interrupts the proceedings of the Commons and summons MPs to the Lords Chamber to hear the Lords Commissioners announce Royal Assent for each Bill." http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/stages/ro…

Also…

"The granting of the Royal Assent is sometimes associated with elaborate ceremonies. In the United Kingdom, the Sovereign may appoint Lords Commissioners, who announce that Royal Assent has been granted at a ceremony held at the Palace of Westminster, Buckingham Palace, or another royal residence. However Royal Assent is usually granted less ceremonially by letters patent. In other nations, including Australia and Canada, the Governor-General merely signs the bill." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Assent

Sigh

I think it was delightful that the Duchess of Cornwall decided to get married with a sheaf of wheat on her head.

http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www….
http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

the sheaf of wheat example was pretty damn good as examples go.
http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

agree on Almunia joylon.
http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

agree on Almunia joylon.
http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

Are you an everton fan?

I would gladly trade Howard for Almunia. And I have always enjoyed watching Arteta who was not playing today, thankfully.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

Agreed. If it isn't abused in the UK, what is it that stops the abuse?
http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

I was first introduced to UK women wearing crazy hats when I watched horse-racing on Ladies Day at Aintree.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/gallery/20…
orval

This is to be expected when the Governor-General responds to the Prime Minister's advice that she stop referring to herself as Canada's "head of state" by arguing the point.

I am glad the PM did it this way. I still shake my head at last year's prorogation, with the live TV coverage of the GG's flight returning to Ottawa and then the PM being kept waiting 2 hours the next day for an "audience" with Her Excellency.

I am sure that PM when leaving Rideau Hall in December 2008 was muttering under his breath "next time I'm just going to phone it in."
http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

hmmm, i somewhat, but not completely agree skdadl. i think they point to some structural issues, even if not framed as an agenda for reform per se, things like the size of the UK House relative to ours and its implications. But you are right that there is more to say about structure. a more concrete structural reform agenda can be drawn from those experiences of those countries.

also, i fully concur that a thorough analysis were make more of cultural differences. i see some of this as cyclical or as moving in waves where leaders in different jurisdictions push on different elements of what they can get away with. i don't think it leads, necessarily, to uniform take up by others elsewhere (for example, Howard in Australia did some damaging things in Australia we haven't seen replicated here or in the UK yet). I think it leads to a more general sense across jurisdictions that the constitution and its conventions are extremely malleable and their are few instances where their are sufficiently spelled out consequences that inhibit taking full advantage of that as circumstance demands if need be. the willingness to do so seems to come and go (and is definitely not determined by partisan stripe!).

i had a discussion with a more 'c' and 'C' conservative on here last week that i found to be representative of this perspective. his point was essentially if it is not laid out in law it is more or less a suggestion, and if it is a suggestion it can't possibly be binding. as we all know, we can't possibly write laws to meet every potential contingency so the cultural dynamic that drives that commentator's perspective is key!
http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

nah not really, i feel like the are a bit of a underdog and so i like that. i am more just a fan of watching good games in the premiership these days joylon.