Skip to main content

1-20 of 2,062 results for subject:Prorogation

Year X
2019

Type

-
Early day motions (1)
+ Members' contributions (2,013)
-
Business questions (40)
-
Oral answers to questions (14)
+ Oral questions (20)
-
Prime Minister's questions (6)
-
Topical questions (2)
-
Proceeding contributions (1,979)
+ Parliamentary committees (2) + Committee proceedings (2)
-
Committee of the Whole House (HL) (1)
-
Select Committee oral evidence (1)
-
Select Committee written evidence (1)
+ Parliamentary papers (3)
-
Command papers (2)
-
House of Commons papers (1)
+ Parliamentary proceedings (28) + Debates (13) + Committee proceedings (2)
-
Committee of the Whole House (HL) (1)
-
Select Committee oral evidence (1)
-
e-petition debates (1)
-
Emergency debate applications (2)
-
Emergency debates (2)
+ Legislative debates (5)
-
Debates on bills (5)
-
Opposition days (1)
+ Formal proceedings (3)
-
Non-legislative formal proceedings (3)
+ Petitions and observations (2)
-
Observations on petitions (1)
-
Paper petitions (1)
+ Statements (7) + Oral statements (7)
-
Business statements (2)
-
Lord Speaker's statements (1)
-
Ministerial statements (3)
-
Speaker's statements (1)
-
Urgent questions (2)
+ Written corrections (1)
-
Ministerial corrections (1)
+ Parliamentary questions (77)
-
Business questions (40)
+ Oral questions (20)
-
Prime Minister's questions (6)
-
Topical questions (2)
-
Urgent questions (2)
-
Written questions (15)
+ Petitions and observations (2)
-
Observations on petitions (1)
-
Paper petitions (1)
+ Research briefings (3)
-
Commons Briefing papers (2)
+ Lords Library Briefings (1)
-
Lords Library Briefings - Topical (1)

House

Session

Month

Department

Member

More

Primary member

More

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

More

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

This House of Lords Library Briefing provides an overview of prerogative powers in the UK. It includes a discussion of powers reserved to the monarch, and examples of how they have been used.

Type
Lords Library Briefings - Topical
Date
13 December 2019
Reference
LLN-2019-0156

To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by the Earl of Courtown on 8 October (HL17934), whether they will now answer the question put, namely what assessment they have made of the constitutional and political implications of the Supreme Court ruling that the Government's decision to advise...

Asked by
Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Independent Labour)
Answering body
Cabinet Office
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Date
29 October 2019
Reference
HL136
House
House of Lords
Lead member
Kevin Foster
Department
Cabinet Office
Type
Observations on petitions
Date
14 October 2019
Reference
666 cc1-2P
House
House of Commons

To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the constitutional and political implications of the Supreme Court ruling that the Government's decision to advise Her Majesty The Queen to prorogue Parliament was unlawful, and therefore the subsequent prorogation was void and of no effect.

Asked by
Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Independent Labour)
Answering body
Cabinet Office
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Date
8 October 2019
Reference
HL17934
House
House of Lords

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons, by virtue of Her Majesty’s Commission which has now been read, we do, in Her Majesty’s name, and in obedience to Her Majesty’s Commands, prorogue this Parliament to the 14th day of October, to be then here holden, and this Parliament...

Member
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 October 2019
Reference
799 c2075
House
House of Lords

Her Majesty’s most gracious Speech was then delivered to both Houses of Parliament by the Lord Privy Seal, in pursuance of Her Majesty’s Command, as follows. My Lords and Members of the House of Commons, my Government’s legislative programme has laid the foundations for the United Kingdom’s departure from the...

Type
Non-legislative formal proceedings
Date
8 October 2019
Reference
799 cc2073-5
House
House of Lords

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Parliament is expected to prorogue today, but, unusually, the Privy Council website still does not list an Order in Council as having been approved for Prorogation. The matter is listed on

the Order Paper and in the House of Lords on the...

Member
Chris Leslie (Change UK - The Independent Group)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 October 2019
Reference
664 c1683
House
House of Commons

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners delivered by the Lady Usher of the Black Rod. The Speaker, with the House, went up to hear Her Majesty’s Commission; on their return, the Speaker sat in the Clerk’s place at the Table.

Type
Non-legislative formal proceedings
Date
8 October 2019
Reference
664 cc1742-6
House
House of Commons
Type
House of Commons papers; Select Committee oral evidence; Select Committee written evidence; Parliamentary committees
Committee
Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee
Date
8 October 2019
Reference
HC 2666 2017-19
House
House of Commons

To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office, what assessment he has made of the length of prorogation required in order for the Government to prepare for a Queen's speech.

Asked by
Stuart C McDonald (Scottish National Party)
Answering body
Cabinet Office
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Date
4 October 2019
Reference
291405
House
House of Commons

To ask the Attorney General, what estimate he has made of the cost to the public purse of the legal cases in relation to the prorogation of Parliament.

Asked by
Tom Brake (Liberal Democrat)
Answering body
Attorney General
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Date
4 October 2019
Reference
290577
House
House of Commons

To ask the Attorney General, how much was spent by the UK Government in undertaking legal action in the (a) Cherry and others (Respondents) v Advocate General for Scotland (Appellant) (Scotland), (b) R (on the application of Miller) (Appellant) v The Prime Minister (Respondent) in the Supreme Court, (c) case...

Asked by
Lord Hanson of Flint (Labour)
Answering body
Attorney General
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Date
4 October 2019
Reference
290699
House
House of Commons

I cannot comment on the content of Cabinet discussions but, as I told the House last week, the judgment sets out the definitive and final legal position on the advice given to Her Majesty on the Prorogation of Parliament. We are carefully and deliberatively considering the implications of that judgment. We need some time to do it, but a Queen’s Speech is necessary to bring forward a fresh legislative programme, and a short Prorogation, as announced yesterday, is necessary—we are advised to this effect by the parliamentary authorities—for the Queen’s Speech.

Answered by
Geoffrey Cox (Conservative)
Answering body
Attorney General
Type
Oral answers to questions
Date
3 October 2019
Reference
664 c1359
House
House of Commons

In the light of the Supreme Court’s judgment and the vital role it identified for this House of scrutinising the Executive, what discussions is the Attorney General having with Cabinet colleagues to ensure that we have sufficient time to discuss the proposals the Prime Minister is due to bring forward? How much time will we actually have to debate them?

Asked by
Rachael Maskell (Labour; Co-operative Party)
Answering body
Attorney General
Oral questions - 1st Supplementary
Status
Answered
Date
3 October 2019
Reference
664 c1359
House
House of Commons

I know that those matters are being actively considered. I am sure they will be considered in consultation and through the usual channels. As much time as conceivably can be made available will be made available to debate those very important matters. The Prime Minister is making a statement later this morning, and the Government are more than conscious—acutely conscious—of the need for all Members of this House to scrutinise any deal that may be agreed.

Answered by
Geoffrey Cox (Conservative)
Answering body
Attorney General
Type
Oral answers to questions
Date
3 October 2019
Reference
664 c1359
House
House of Commons

Eight days ago, the Attorney General told the House, in response to a question from the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), that he would consider disclosure of his legal advice on the unlawful Prorogation of Parliament. Can he now confirm that he will do the right thing and release his advice before Parliament is prorogued next week?

Asked by
Jo Stevens (Labour)
Answering body
Attorney General
Oral questions - 1st Supplementary
Status
Answered
Date
3 October 2019
Reference
664 c1359
House
House of Commons

I have been considering that question. I am still considering it. I have not reached a conclusion. When I have, I will make sure the hon. Lady is informed.

Answered by
Geoffrey Cox (Conservative)
Answering body
Attorney General
Type
Oral answers to questions
Date
3 October 2019
Reference
664 c1359
House
House of Commons

If the Attorney General believes in the law, can he confirm that he has discussed with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster the electoral offences committed by Vote Leave?

Asked by
Ian Lucas (Labour)
Answering body
Attorney General
Oral questions - 1st Supplementary
Status
Answered
Date
3 October 2019
Reference
664 c1359
House
House of Commons

May I tell the hon. Gentleman that I do believe in the law and I have spent 37 years of my life adhering to those professional values? As for the advice I may or may not have given to any member of the Government, he will know I am bound by the

convention. I cannot tell him whether I have. I understand the purport of his question, and I do not criticise him for it in the least, but I regret that I cannot help him as to the content of any advice I have given.

Answered by
Geoffrey Cox (Conservative)
Answering body
Attorney General
Type
Oral answers to questions
Date
3 October 2019
Reference
664 c1359
House
House of Commons

I urge the Attorney General to reflect that departing from the norm that Law Officers’ advice is not disclosed should be undertaken only with great care, because of the implications for all future Law Officers and all future advice to Government. Is not the rub of this issue simply this: that, as the President of the Supreme Court said, the circumstances that gave rise to the judgment were a “one off”; the Court was asked to rule on a novel point on which, up until then, legal opinion had varied; it has made a ruling; and the Government accept and will abide by the ruling, as they should with any ruling of our independent courts?

Asked by
Robert Neill (Conservative)
Answering body
Attorney General
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Date
3 October 2019
Reference
664 c1360
House
House of Commons