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/DZulu Dave Z.

Can't even say that, when we were importing the Westminster system, somehow this was lost in translation.
Scott

LOL. We laugh now……
http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

Can't the PM text her or something?

Is it that important? Why not just get the Executive Assistant to do it? Or a Co-Op intern from the University of Waterloo–after he's done that batch of photocopying?
A. MacLaren

on page 36 of my current Macleans, in the article on global warming, you or your editor make that most irritating mistake when you say that " The data they cite has been drawn..". Probably, you mean "HAVE been drawn"? You know better! Fire your sub-editors.

M. Emmet

According to Oxford Concise English the use of "data" as a mass or collective noun is entirely permissible, thus "The data they cite has been drawn[...]" is not a mistake. Perhaps a greater understanding of the English language would lead to less irritation when reading articles.

Justin

BURN!

Bryan L.

What's a sub-editor?

http://intensedebate.com/people/andrewcoyne Andrew Coyne

Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa.
Dee

"The Prime Minister phones the Governor General."

What a classy guy we have for a PM, eh?
Brian Thoms

I think the PM is just lucky that Canadians aren't as hot-blooded as Liberal photoshoppers make them seem!

I say scrap the federal government. It's just Ontario looking out for Ontario anyhow.
Brian Thoms

Actually, I should say the federal government is just the status quo of Upper and Lower Canada both trying to eat each other alive, all the while dragging the rest of the provinces down with them.

tobyornottoby

What about all those Alberta MPs on the government side? Ineffectual tools of the Family Compact?

http://intensedebate.com/people/craigola craigola

If he's the chessmaster I'm told he is, I'm inclined to believe as well that he did it that way very purposefully.

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

I agree Craig. I think he is just playing the part of the provocateur. Wait until you see the budget in March.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Harbles Harbles

Many thanks for the historical British perspective.

I look forward to an analysis of how the prorogue has been used historically in the Canadian context. (or a link to your fave already in the ether-sphere)

Cheers!
Dave

MJ: prorogue. kthxbye.
Jim

Should we be expecting a Special Collector's Prorogue Edition of Macleans?

Where all the Macleans blog colleagues can do their greatest prorogue whining bits.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

Does our House of Commons ever get to slam the door in the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod's face? I mean, you've got to import the prorogue bit just for that alone!

tobyornottoby

If we slam it on Baird instead we'll get more "ceremony."

Dave

How antiquated. Can't the PM text her or something?
Mike T.

…Lords and chancellors who have asked question about prisoner treatment during the last sitting are ceremoniously gagged, then taken behind the royal shed and beaten.
http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

Royal Assent is formally announced to all legislation not already passed this session.

If royal command is made on the advice of the PM, this seems rather problematic to me. It would virtually grant a sitting PM a backdoor means of passing unpopular legislation.
http://www.pogge.ca skdadl

Yes — that passage brought me up short too. Can this be so? What stage would said legislation have to be at?

At the moment, this would be a disastrous power in Canada, and it's easy to imagine, as sea'n'mountains says, how it could be made worse. Do first reading (ie: mere introduction) of all kinds of nasty measures one day (or as long as that takes); then prorogue the next. Surely even in the UK this is not happening?
http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

skdadl (great name, btw!) I would guess that it has not been abused in the UK in this manner, or if it has such abuse has been rare. As Ibbitson in the Globe this morning and Coyne in reacting to Ibbitson point out, our Parliament is much more weak and open to abuse than its UK counterpart, not to mention Australia and New Zealand counterparts (which they do!). I suspect that had this been abuse the BBC article would have made mention of its controversial nature.

see:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/few-…

and:
http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/08/the-real-issue…
hellomike

Royal Assent is only granted after a bill is passed in both houses.

If a bill hasn't been passed in both houses it wouldn't be up for royal assent.
hellomike

Royal Assent is only granted after a bill is passed in both houses.

If a bill hasn't been passed in both houses it wouldn't be up for royal assent.
http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

uhm, did you read the original?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Be_rad Be_rad

I read both, and I think the confusion may come from the BBC's loose use of "not already passed". It could mean not already passed all stages of reading, or not already given Royal Assent, the final "passage" of a bill. If you use the latter interpretation, it would only apply to bills having received 3rd reading in both places.

http://www.pogge.ca skdadl

sea'n'mountains, I have read both Andrew and Ibbitson, and I feel the need to respond at length to Ibbitson's ridiculous column, so I will do that at our place rather than here. I think we're running into politics for one thing — Ibbitson could only write about the U.S. Congress as he does, eg, if he accepted their near-decade-long subservience to a stronger and stronger executive, now challenged there by the courts (some of them) alone.

Beyond that, I couldn't see that either Andrew or Ibbitson was proposing serious structural reforms (PR), and neither talked about the deep cultural differences that affect the relative restraint or independence of MPs, not to mention citizens, in Canada and the UK.
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/jolyon jolyon

You can always count on the Brits to put on a brilliant ceremony, no matter the occasion, at the very least. UK is going to hell in a handcart but at least they have traditions.
http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

re-read the piece Ibbitson also has some outright errors. that ain't good.