Yes. I do appreciate the kind of extraordinary circumstances that have brought us to this juncture, but I think the likely continuation of minority governments, in the intermediate future anyway, makes it important for the House to consider the role of the House in the governing process and the parliamentary agenda-setting process.
I think it is a very valuable exercise for the House to establish its role in consenting to prorogation. I think it's part of this process of re-establishing the identity and the legitimacy of the House in its relationship with the government of the day. I think that is a very worthwhile exercise for future governments: to be reminded that the House is the master of its own affairs and that the government needs the consent of the House.
I think it's important to do this. The suggestions I've tried to make should allow for some degree of flexibility in terms of dealing with unforeseen circumstances, but in the routine day-to-day process of parliamentary business, I think the emphasis should be on being able to get as much business done as possible. If the House wants to continue in a longer session, perhaps it should have the freedom to do so. If it's a fixed session, that's fine, but the House should decide, as a House, how long it sits and when it has finished its business.