Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Professor, do you think Lascelles principles that have been applied to the acceptance or refusal of requests to dissolve the House have any applicability here?
As you know, in 1950 the private secretary to King George VI published a letter in The Times in which he discussed the principles that he thought applied. He said:
...it can be properly assumed that no wise Sovereign—that is, one who has at heart the true interest of the country, the constitution, and the Monarchy—would deny a dissolution to his Prime Minister unless he were satisfied that: (1) the existing Parliament was still vital, viable, and capable of doing its job; (2) a General Election would be detrimental to the national economy; (3) he could rely on finding another Prime Minister who could carry on his Government, for a reasonable period, with a working majority in the House of Commons.
The first criterion has no relation to prorogation by definition, because all parties are assuming that the current Parliament is viable. But what about points (2) and (3)? If the Governor General were trying to make a decision as to whether or not to accept a recommendation for prorogation, would they serve as a good basis on which to formulate the decision?