Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

My Lords, this amendment deals with the requirement for the Speaker to issue a certificate. This is one of the most important and difficult issues in the Bill. I was very interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Marks, speak thoughtfully about this problem in his concluding remarks just now. It seems to me, if I may venture to suggest this to the Committee, quite unsuitable that we should embark upon this very major debate at this hour of the evening, but if that is its wish, I shall very briefly sketch the issue that I think we should return to—which we will be able to do, for example, on Amendment 51, which I have tabled as an amendment to Amendment 50 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. Amendment 32 would require the Speaker to have certified in advance that a Motion was to be regarded as a Motion of no confidence if it were to lead to an early general election. The legislation requires the Speaker to issue a certificate establishing that a Motion of no confidence has been passed on a Division as a precondition of Dissolution and an early general election. The idea of a Speaker’s certificate was lifted from the Parliament Act 1911, which requires the Speaker to certify that a Bill is a money Bill before it goes to the House of Lords. That certification is of a relatively ascertainable fact. The characteristics of a money Bill are clearly described in the preceding subsection of the Parliament Act. The introduction of the concept of a Speaker’s certificate is entirely novel, I think, in the context of Motions of no confidence, and I believe that it needs extremely careful consideration for three reasons. First, there is the difficulty of defining a Motion of no confidence, a Motion of confidence or vote of confidence—what exactly is the Bill talking about? Secondly, through this procedure, the Speaker would be liable to be placed in extremely contentious political circumstances and to have to play an extremely contentious part in them. Thirdly, the statutory requirement for the Speaker to issue such a certificate may lay him open to legal challenge in the courts, either those of this country or the European Court of Justice. That is a major hazard apprehended by the Clerk of the House of Commons. For all these three reasons, I believe that we need to proceed with the utmost caution and that what is drafted in the Bill carries with it very considerable risks. I would prefer frankly to lay out my arguments more fully when we come to Amendment 51, when I think the Committee expects to address these major concerns about the nature of a Motion of no confidence and the Speaker’s role. For now, I shall say only that among the reasons why I have tabled this amendment is that the Minister, Mr Harper, in giving evidence to the Select Committee on the Constitution, said that it was the Government’s view that, "““the Speaker would make it very clear before such a vote took place whether it was a vote on which he would issue his certificate””." We need to examine that thought very carefully. There would be immense difficulties for the Speaker in certifying in advance that a Motion was to be a vote of no confidence. It is plain sailing where it is a classic vote of no confidence, in which the expression ““no confidence”” is explicitly articulated and there is no ambiguity—the House is entirely accustomed to this convention. However, it gets more difficult where the Speaker has to certify that a Government defeat on a major measure was, in effect, a defeat on a Motion of confidence. With defeats on the Queen’s Speech, on Budget resolutions or on the Second or Third Readings of a Finance Bill, again the House knows where it stands on votes of those kinds and the difficulties would not be too great for the Speaker. However, there are other categories of potential Government defeats, which may be regarded as votes of confidence, where it is dangerous, unreasonable and altogether excessive to require the Speaker to certify that the vote which has just taken place is a vote whereby the Government forfeit the confidence of the House of Commons and the Government must therefore fall and there must be a general election. I shall say no more about these very important major issues now because it is late in the evening and we will have other opportunities. They deserve to be considered by a better attended House than we have at the moment, which is no reflection on the quality of scrutiny of those noble Lords who are conscientiously present at this late hour. I beg to move.