here - United Kingdom Parliament

833 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 1 DECEMBER 2010 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 834
very soon and agreed that with the Opposition, it would
not necessarily have to be tabled the next day. I do not
think that it is an inordinate problem. We think that it is
sensible for there to be a fixed timetable for a Government
to be formed so that everyone has some certainty. That
is why we picked the time period that we have.
My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest spoke
in support of amendments 36 and 37, which are also
tabled in the names of other members of the Select
Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform.
Amendment 36 would make the 14 days in a period
following a Government defeat a period that would not
include periods of Prorogation or Adjournment for
more than four days. Although I do not think that this
is the intention behind the amendment, its effect would
be to permit the 14-day period for Government formation
to be prolonged potentially indefinitely if the House
was prorogued or adjourned. The Government do not
think that that is appropriate. We think that the 14-day
period strikes the right balance between giving parties
in this House time to discuss and see whether a Government
can be formed and not allowing things to go on for so
long that the country is plunged into a period of uncertainty.
We do not think that amendment 36 is acceptable.
Amendment 37 provides that a Prime Minister must
resign within seven calendar days of losing a vote of no
confidence and recommend to the monarch a successor
who appears to them to be the person most likely to be
able to command the confidence of the House. I think I
am right to say—my hon. Friend the Member for
Epping Forest will correct me if I am wrong—that the
purpose of the amendment is to avoid a situation in
which a Prime Minister who has lost a no confidence
vote wishes to remain in power and asks the monarch to
prorogue Parliament to avoid an alternative Government
receiving a vote of confidence, thereby forcing a general
election.
Mrs Laing: Yes.
Mr Harper: My hon. Friend says that that is indeed
the purpose of the amendment. However, I think
amendment 37 is defective, because it rules out the
possibility of what happened in 1979 occurring again.
As I have said, Prime Minister Callaghan did not resign
as a result of the no confidence motion. He remained in
office, asked Her Majesty the Queen to dissolve Parliament
and resigned when he lost the subsequent general election.
That outcome remains a possibility under the Bill. My
hon. Friend’s amendment would have meant that he
would have been forced to resign before the result of the
election was known. I do not think that that would have
been a sensible outcome.
Mrs Laing: I fully appreciate the Minister’s point.
Amendments 36 and 37 might well be technically
defective—in any case, I have no intention of pressing
them to a vote, as I said—but the Select Committee’s
purpose was to ensure that this issue was properly
discussed and scrutinised on the Floor of the House.
Will the Minister reassure the House that he and his
colleagues are satisfied that it would not be possible
under the Bill’s provisions for the Government to seek
indefinite prorogation in order to avoid a vote of confidence
and a general election?
Mr Harper: I think I have set out why I do not think
that that is likely. As we have heard, there are lots of
theoretical possibilities that are very outlandish—I do
not propose to rehash the conversations that we had
at the beginning of this debate—but the Government
do not think that they are realistic risks and that is why
we do not think that amendments 36 and 37 are acceptable.
Let me turn now to the last amendment in this group,
amendment 25, which was also tabled by the Opposition.
It specifies the wording of motions of no confidence for
the purposes of clause 2(2). It aims to remove the
discretion of the House over its wording and that of
the Speaker in his certifying of a motion of no
confidence. The Government recognise that no
confidence motions might take different forms, as they
do now, but we do not want to remove the flexibility
entirely. That raises an issue, which we will come to in
the next group of amendments, to do with the House’s
exclusive cognisance.
If we try to set out in statute the precise form of a no
confidence motion, that could raise the risks to which
the Clerk of the House has alluded. We think it is better
for the Speaker’s certificate to be conclusive and for the
Speaker to determine the nature of that certification.
As I said when we touched on this matter in debating a
previous group of amendments, if there were doubt—I
think it unlikely that there would be—about whether
what the House was discussing was a motion of no
confidence, it would seem to be sensible for the Government,
the Opposition and the Speaker to ensure that Members
were clear on that point when they were debating it. I
cannot believe that there could ever be a debate in this
House about a motion of no confidence in the Government
in which Members were sitting there completely unaware
that they were debating the future of the Government
of our country.
1.15 pm
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP): Of course,
the Minister is right about the reality and the politics of
the situation. He should remember, however, that we
are talking about a situation in which legislation has
been introduced and that legislation is always challengeable
in the courts. Once things get into the courts, who
knows what will happen regarding the interpretation of
the provisions? For the sake of clarity and certainty,
what is wrong with setting out the precise terms that
must be used so that there can be no doubt? That goes
to the issue in amendment 6, tabled by the hon. Member
for Stone (Mr Cash), which sets out provisions for the
avoidance of doubt. Surely there is merit in making it
absolutely clear and plain.
Mr Harper: I shall not attempt to rush forward to the
certification procedure, because we will debate it when
we discuss the next group of amendments.
Let me turn to the specific amendment before the
Committee. I do not think amendment 25 achieves the
certainty that the right hon. Member for Belfast North
(Mr Dodds) suggests would be desirable. It states that a
motion of no confidence “shall be”, not “must include”,
so it is not clear whether the motion would have to
consist exclusively of the specified text or whether that
text could be part of a motion, such as if it were added
to a Government motion by amendment.