What did John Bercow rule out on Monday?
He has told the government that it cannot send Theresa May’s Brexit deal back for a third vote in parliament immediately unless substantial changes are made to it.
What is Bercow’s reasoning for his ruling?
He has based his decision on Erskine May, the official parliamentary rulebook. This work was begun by Thomas Erskine May, a constitutional expert who in 1844 published a work on the proceedings of parliament. He later became clerk of the Commons and regularly updated the work, as did others in later years. It is now into its 24th edition. Page 397 of the document states that a motion or amendment “which is the same, in substance” as something already voted on should not be brought forward again in a session of parliament.
Is this all Bercow’s idea?
No. The Speaker said he was responding to questions on the issue from MPs, among them Labour’s Chris Bryant, who last week tabled an amendment to the second meaningful vote on May’s deal making such a point. It was withdrawn without a vote, but the point was made.
Is there precedent for such a decision?
The Speaker said the general principle, as outlined by Erskine May, dates back to 1604. In his speech last Tuesday about his amendment, Bryant gave a series of examples where Speakers had refused MPs permission to raise issues which had already been decided that session, including about extra funding to nursery schools in 1864, limiting rail workers’ hours in 1891, and on women’s suffrage in 1912.
Does Bercow have authority to do this?
Yes – according to parliamentary rules, as Speaker he is the “highest authority of the House of Commons” and has final say over how the business is conducted, as well as other key choices, for example which tabled amendments are selected for votes.
Could the government just change the rules?
In theory, yes. Amid a series of points of order by MPs to Bercow after his announcement, Conservative Alex Burghart asked if the Commons could simply suspend the standing orders which prevent repeat votes. This was, the Speaker replied, up to the house. Whether or not MPs would vote to pass such a measure is another matter.
Is there another way round the ruling?
Yes – and this is one raised as a possibility by the solicitor general, Robert Buckland. It would be the idea of circumventing the rules on not repeating a vote in the same session of parliament by simply calling a new session of parliament. This would mean the government would prorogue parliament – the technical term for ending its session – and then call it to sit again.
There is a part-precedent for this in the passage of the 1949 Parliament Act, which reduced the powers of the House of Lords to delay certain legislation. The law was blocked by the Lords twice, over two parliamentary sessions.
Since the existing law which the new act was replacing – the 1911 Parliament Act – required three parliamentary sessions to pass before the Commons could overturn the Lords, the Attlee government prorogued parliament – ending the session – and began a new special session lasting from 14 to 26 September 1948, complete with its own King’s speech.
Asked by MPs if this could happen, Bercow said it would be “an unusual step” but confirmed it was possible.
Where can I read the relevant rules on the internet?
You can’t – at least not yet. Currently Erskine May, all 1,097 pages of it, will cost you £439.99 for a hard copy from the parliament bookshop. However, change is afoot. it is already digitised and available on the parliamentary intranet. In December the leader of the Commons, Andrea Leadsom, said it would soon be available to all for free. This is expected to happen with the forthcoming 25th edition.
