Counsellors of State Bill [HL]
Tuesday 15th November 2022
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Counsellors of State Act 2022 Read Hansard Text
Counsellors of State Bill [HL]
Monday 21st November 2022
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Counsellors of State Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 66-I Marshalled list for Committee - (21 Nov 2022)
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, I know that all noble Lords will be aware of His Majesty the King’s message to both Houses of Parliament and I am confident that there is a strong desire across your Lordships’ House to support His Majesty to undertake his ceremonial and constitutional duties at home and overseas.
As your Lordships will be aware, the sovereign performs a significant number of functions which form a key part of the machinery of government of the United Kingdom, including indicating assent to legislation. The sovereign also performs a similar role in relation to the Crown dependencies and the British Overseas Territories. It is essential that these functions, which are a core part of our constitutional arrangements, can continue to be performed if the sovereign is unable to perform them personally by reason of absence or otherwise. This Bill will add that necessary resilience by modifying the Regency Acts 1937 to 1953.
Therefore, I am sure that this Bill will commend itself to your Lordships as being an effective and simple provision supporting His Majesty’s Government to continue as required, and that noble Lords will share my belief that it is our honour and duty to be of service to His Majesty in this matter, which will enable him to give the fullest service to the nation.
Section 6 of the Regency Acts 1937 to 1953 provides for Counsellors of State, to whom royal functions can be delegated where the sovereign is absent from the UK or is ill. It has always been important to ensure that government business can continue in these circumstances. As Section 6(1) of the 1937 Act explains, this is
“to prevent delay or difficulty in the despatch of public business”.
I will briefly set out the functioning of the Acts specifically with regard to Counsellors of State. The delegation of royal functions is made by the sovereign through Letters Patent for the period of the illness or absence. The sovereign may revoke or vary the delegation by Letters Patent, which set out the statutory limitations of the delegation. The sovereign will also usually specify in them which functions are and are not delegated. In practice, the Letters Patent create a pool of all the Counsellors of State to whom functions can be delegated. Counsellors of State exercise royal functions jointly or by such number of them as may be specified in the Letters Patent.
Generally, Counsellors of State have acted in pairs. Those who are absent from the United Kingdom during the period of delegation may be excepted, as per Section 6(2) of the 1937 Act. The Counsellors of State are currently the spouse of the sovereign, if applicable, and the four persons who are next in the line of succession to the Crown, excluding those who are disqualified under the Act. Counsellors of State were routinely appointed when Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth travelled abroad. In fact, they have been appointed over 30 times in the last few decades, and of course, as we recall, during the State Opening of Parliament earlier this year.
The functions Counsellors of State undertake can include, for example, indicating assent to legislation, formally approving appointments, and providing authority for the affixing of the Great Seal to documents, such as royal proclamations. The role can also include convening Privy Council meetings where necessary. The Bill represents a practical solution and safeguard to ensure that the machinery of government can continue. The Royal Household has confirmed that, in practice, working members—I repeat that—of the Royal Family will be called upon to act as Counsellors of State, and that diaries will be arranged to make this practicable.
The Bill proposes a very precise and limited modification to the provisions in the Regency Acts in respect of Counsellors of State. In line with the King’s message to both Houses of Parliament, the Bill will add His Royal Highness the Earl of Wessex and Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal to the list of Counsellors of State. They will undertake those roles for their lifetimes. By doing so, the Bill will provide greater resilience in our constitutional arrangements by widening the pool of Counsellors of State. As His Majesty undertakes engagements abroad, this is an expedient step, helping His Majesty’s Government plan for contingencies. Furthermore, Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal and His Royal Highness the Earl of Wessex have extensive experience—over 50 years between them, I believe—of supporting the sovereign with their official duties, having previously served as Counsellors of State during the reign of Her late Majesty.
The Bill follows the precedent set by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth when, shortly after her accession in 1953, she asked Parliament to consider legislating for Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother to be a Counsellor of State. The Queen Mother had previously acted as a Counsellor of State but had ceased to be one following the death of her husband King George VI in 1952. Seven decades ago, Parliament passed the Regency Act 1953 to deliver on Her late Majesty’s wishes. Today, as we bring the Bill before this House, reflecting His Majesty’s wishes, we are guided by precedent in the substantive approach and procedure.
I trust, therefore, that your Lordships will agree with me that this is a prudent and expedient modification to the long-tested provisions for Counsellors of State that will offer the necessary resilience to our constitutional arrangements and be of great support to His Majesty. I am confident that the Bill will command considerable support, and I know that this House and this Parliament will wish to be of assistance and support to our sovereign as he undertakes his vital duties. I beg to move.
Lord Janvrin (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support the Bill. It will ensure that the constitutional business of the Government can proceed without delay when the sovereign is unavailable. I declare an interest as a former member of the late Queen’s household.
The daily workload of the sovereign as Head of State contains much that is of an essentially formal legal nature, requiring, for example, a presence, a formal approval or a signature to process state business according to law. As we have heard, this covers such things as Privy Council meetings, receiving ambassadors’ credentials or the formal approval of appointments. It has long been the working practice of the Palace to ensure that such formal business is carried out without delay—hence, for example, the discipline of the daily red boxes and the regular appointment, certainly in my time, of Counsellors of State when the Queen was overseas. The present pool of working members of the Royal Family who are eligible and available to be Counsellors of State is, for reasons which are well known, very small. The addition of the Earl of Wessex and the Princess Royal makes very good practical sense. If I may say, when many minds are on football, it will give much-needed strength and depth to the bench.
I have three brief points to add. First, some might question whether in the age of Teams, Zoom and electronic signatures the business of the Head of State could be updated—as indeed some of it had to be during Covid—but I am not sure that this is the right way to go in normal times. Some of the activities performed by Counsellors of State, such as the receipt of credentials from ambassadors, are better done face to face, especially when a little ceremonial adds to the occasion. I am no expert on the legal technicalities of how, where and when electronic signatures are valid, but I would need to be persuaded that an electronic royal sign manual is either practical or historically desirable, especially when the alternative of Counsellors of State is on the statute book.
Secondly, the Bill is about process and good administrative practice; namely, the expeditious execution of formal government business. It is not about policy matters or wider royal matters such as finances, programmes, major speeches or other royal activities which are the subject of continuous formal and informal discussion between the Government and the Palace.
Thirdly, this is a very limited administrative measure but one which could be of great importance in the event of unforeseen developments that come out of nowhere; I think, for example, of accident or illness.
The fast-tracking of the Bill though Parliament therefore seems entirely sensible. It is a very simple Bill which does not affect the underlying Regency Act, and it is entirely non-political. For this reason, it surely does not merit extensive use of scarce parliamentary time. I support the Bill and the Government’s handling of it.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, this is a necessary Bill, and it should pass. It is also the case that we know why it is necessary. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, who speaks with such experience and authority in this area.
The monarch cannot always be available to perform his or her duties, and by long tradition over centuries, enshrined most recently in statute, others have been appointed from within the Royal Household to assist the sovereign. The duties cover things such as those listed by the noble Lord, including Privy Council meetings, signing relevant documents, receiving ambassadorial credentials and so on, but they do not include appointing Prime Ministers, dissolving Parliament or conferring peerages.
Under the existing Regency Act 1937, as the Leader of the House outlined, there are currently five who hold the position of Counsellor of State: the Queen Consort, the Prince of Wales, the Duke of York, the Duke of Sussex and Princess Beatrice. I think that there are many people in this country who would find this current list a curious mixture. Many would say, “Well, why isn’t Princess Anne and Prince Edward on it?”, which of course is why we are here today. That is because the current list, under the formula of the 1937 Act, bases Counsellors of State on the next four adults in the line of succession. It is clear that neither the King nor the Government want to change the definition of the line of succession to the Crown, or its relationship to those who are eligible to serve as a Counsellor of State. Yet, for reasons that we know, the current system is untenable, which is why we have this Bill.
When I first raised the issue at the beginning of the year, it was already clear that there were elements of Her late Majesty’s reign that had a regency about it. Her Majesty had reached a great age and was increasingly unable to fulfil some of the constitutional functions that she had performed with such distinction for decades. Earlier this year, the Government announced that they had no intention to change the Act, but events unfolded—the Leader of the House referred to the single most decisive occasion, which was the opening of this current Session of Parliament—which were only made possible by virtue of the operation of the Regency Act. We know that Her Majesty’s final constitutional act was to appoint a new Prime Minister, something that only a monarch can do. I am one of those of the opinion that she deliberately held on because she knew that that duty lay ahead of her.
As the House knows, I raised the matter on the Floor of the House on 24 October, and my Question swiftly unearthed the news that the King—and, by all accounts, Her late Majesty as well—had also begun to realise that, in future, the existing arrangements would not work because they would not be publicly acceptable in the case of two of the existing Counsellors of State, one of whom has left public life and one of whom has left the country. So, when the King sent his message to your Lordships’ House a week ago, I think it reflected his own recognition that the current position is untenable. He has shown an important sensitivity to public opinion and is to be commended for it.
Over the centuries, Parliament has passed Regency Acts to deal with all manner of circumstances, and the Leader of the House alluded to some of them. The regency Act 1811 provided that Prince George could act for his incapacitated father, King George III; the Regency Act 1830 provided for what would happen if the King died before Victoria had reached the age of 18; the Lords Justices Act 1837 provided for what would happen if Queen Victoria died without legitimate children succeeding her; the Regency Act 1840 provided for what would happen if Queen Victoria died so that Prince Albert would, in effect, take over until such time as their eldest child reached 18; the Regency Act 1910 provided that, in the event of the death of King George V, Queen Mary would rule as regent. In fact, the Regency Act 1937 broke this pattern, because it established, as it were, a mechanism for defining who Counsellors of State would be in relation to the line of succession to the Crown, which we know.
There is a long history of Parliament taking pragmatic action, and the Bill before us today, as has already been said, does the simplest possible thing to address the problem: it simply adds two names to those defined under the Act. I think that it will be widely supported; it is the easiest and most straightforward thing to do. It is, however, a quick fix, and it does not entirely provide a solution to what may happen in the future. If, for example, Princess Anne or Prince Edward were themselves to become unavailable, through circumstances such as illness or worse, the law would immediately need to be looked at again and we would have another Bill before the House. Would it not be better if the Bill provided a sort of updated formula for identifying who can become Counsellors of State depending on circumstances, which is, in effect, what the 1937 Act tried to do?
The Leader of the House said that the start of a new reign is an appropriate time to reconsider the resilience of our constitutional arrangements in support of the monarch, and he is right. But it may be possible that we can spend a short time in Committee exploring an alternative approach, especially in relation to what happens if something happens to the two Counsellors of State that the Bill proposes we add today. In the meantime, I hope the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, who has delivered a very well-researched speech. I must say that, as he was speaking, I had a lovely mental image of his father in a celestial realm writing his diary. I am sure he would have approved of every word that the noble Viscount uttered. He is quite right, as is the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, and my noble friend Lord True: this is a very simple measure to deal with an immediate potential problem. It is right that it should be simple; it is right that it should add just two people to the list at the moment; and that does not mean that the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, is wrong in thinking that there may be a time when we look a little beyond that.
The fact is that we need to extend this list of people. There could be no better two members of the Royal Family than the Princess Royal and the Earl of Wessex to invite to join this list, and this just gives us all a brief opportunity to say how much we are indebted to the Royal Family for the wonderful service they have given, most gloriously personified by Her late Majesty’s seven decades on the throne. I have great confidence that our present King will continue in that tradition, but he needs to have the peace of mind that this very simple measure gives him that, in the unfortunate event of his being unwell, or the necessary event of his being out of the country if some problem crops up, there will be no difficulty about finding two Counsellors of State to fulfil the necessary duties that the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, described so very well. Therefore, it is with very great pleasure that I give my total support to this Bill and express my hope that Committee and any subsequent stage will be extremely brief and that Wednesday’s other important business will not be held up as a result.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I have intervened on previous occasions to discuss these issues. I welcome the Bill, as I have said before. As other noble Lords have said, it is very necessary to ensure that the machinery of government continues when the monarch is abroad or indisposed. Other noble Lords have mentioned the machinery of government, rather than opening fêtes and things. The machinery is vital. It is good that the Lord Privy Seal, in his opening remarks, talked about the working members of the Royal Family, because they work very hard, so this appointment is necessary. I had a chuckle when I read the Bill and saw that the Earl of Wessex took precedence over the Princess Royal. I would like to ask the Lord Privy Seal why. Is it because he is a man, or for some other reason? It does not really matter, because they are both equal anyway.
The most important thing for me is the question of whether the Duke of Sussex and the Duke of York will continue. I have questions for the Lord Privy Seal on both of them. The Duke of Sussex is abroad, as we all know, and Section 6 of the Regency Act 1937 appears to exclude those who are absent from the UK. I do not know whether that means absent for a short or a long time. We can form our own views on it, but it is pretty clear that he is away for quite a long time and I question whether he should still be on the list.
The Duke of York no longer undertakes royal duties, I understand, so I assume that he is excluded from being a Counsellor of State. However, it is not clear whether he is disqualified under Section 2 of the Regency Act 1953 because that applies only to people under 18, I think, which he clearly is not.
The Bill quite rightly adds two more members so, presumably, it can also exclude two members who, I suggest, are no longer working members. As several noble Lords have said, there is a need to bring the list up to date. I have tabled two amendments for us to debate in Committee to investigate and hear comments from noble Lords as to whether it would be a good idea, in addition to adding two people, as the Bill says, to remove two people.
Finally, in the interests of transparency, it would be useful for the Royal Household or the Government to produce a list of members every year or whenever there is a change so that everybody knows the role that people are taking, including whether they still do it or have stopped doing it, and what the criteria are. It is all a bit confusing; there might be some benefit to a bit more transparency.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I usually have strong opinions on almost everything but, I must say, I could not care less about this particular Bill.
We have a system of government that is ridiculous and crazy. It was originally based on the concept that “might is right”, with which I fundamentally disagree. It just seems ridiculous that we still have that system here. We are not a democracy. We do not have any sort of sensible system; I include in that not having proportional representation and still having an appointed House of Lords, even though I am appointed myself.
Honestly, this Bill is so inconsequential to the lives of most people who are struggling to live and work at the moment. Of course the Royal Family works hard, but so do nurses and street cleaners. Please could we give those people some credit as well? I am sorry to strike a sour note, but we should be discussing things that matter, not things such as this that matter to a tiny number of people.
The third paragraph of the Library briefing states:
“There is no provision for making anyone else a counsellor of state.”
I wonder whether we are breaking the law; I do not quite understand what that means. Perhaps the Leader of the House could explain why there is no such provision.
From my point of view, the sooner we have a Scandinavian-style monarchy, the better.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I was moved to put my name down on the speakers’ list by the same point that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made. First, I commend the King on bringing this matter before us so speedily, because it is something that needs looking at.
What the Bill is doing, I think, is trying to deal with an Act that was conceived and passed before the idea of a working member of the Royal Family was invented. That makes for part of the difficulty because it clearly does not remove either the Duke of Sussex or the Duke of York from the list. It does, however, still apply to Princess Beatrice, of course, who will disappear from the list when Prince George is 18 years of age. So it is a bit of an odd Bill. I wonder: what would happen if the Duke of Sussex decided to jet in? What if he saw the King’s diary and saw that the King was going to be on a state visit going from X to Y in, let us say, Australia, so he got on a plane, got off at Heathrow and said, “Hi, I’m here. I’m on the succession list”?
We would get over all this if we had a system whereby the monarch just prescribed that “the Counsellors of State shall be as follows”. That would be very adequate. The Princess Royal and the Earl of Wessex have in the past held the role, and dropped off because of the rules of primogeniture, which is what we are dealing with today. In my elected time, I met the Earl of Wessex and, on several occasions, the Princess Royal. I was always immensely impressed with her. Whenever she turned up to a function in my Euro constituency, she was extraordinarily well briefed and spent her time talking to the people on whatever project she had come to visit. She did not spend her time with the mayor, let alone with the MEP, but with whoever was working in the area that she had come to open, commend, present prizes concerning, and the like. I can think of no one better placed than the Princess Royal to be a Counsellor of State. She certainly knows everything about the job.
The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, will put me right if I am wrong, but the 1840 Act appointed Albert as regent until Prince Edward came of age if Victoria died before he was 18 years old. A strong candidate for the role of Counsellor of State must be the present Princess of Wales. She will be a Counsellor of State when her husband eventually succeeds to the throne. Presumably, if the throne is vacated before Prince George is 18, the Princess of Wales will be designated as the regent-in-waiting. Therefore, it would be very sensible, and give her some practice in the job, if the Princess of Wales was added to this list. I dare say that someone at the Palace will be reading this debate. They might like to consider these points. I certainly will not be pushing anything to a vote, but this is the one time in a lifetime when we can express an opinion on this. As such, I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. One of the jobs of this House is to make informed comment on matters such as this. We are a monarchy, and the Counsellors of State matter.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, this Bill, which I support, would not justify a whole episode of the television series “The Crown”. However, it raises some interesting constitutional questions, despite the dismissal of its significance by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I would welcome the views of the Lord Privy Seal, in writing or when answering this debate, on those questions; I do not propose to table any amendments.
Section 6 of the 1937 Act which this Bill amends is confined to cases when His Majesty is ill or absent abroad. Does the Lord Privy Seal agree that it is anomalous that there could be no delegation to the Counsellors of State if the monarch were at Balmoral, unable to travel and unable to receive visitors because of snow or fog, but that there can be delegation if the monarch is in Paris for the day and easily able to receive a visitor or return to London to conduct urgent business? It seems anomalous that if there is a problem within the United Kingdom, no delegation can be made.
My second question arises from the fact that some of the most important royal functions have been performed by the monarch when abroad. For example, in 1908, when Edward VII was unwilling to interrupt his holiday in Biarritz, Mr Asquith was summoned there to be appointed Prime Minister. In the very useful House of Commons Library paper, Regency and Counsellors of State, written by Mr David Torrance and published in May this year, there is a reference to what happened when Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II was on a Caribbean tour in 1966. There was a request by the then Prime Minister, Mr Harold Wilson, for a Dissolution of Parliament. The assent of Her Majesty was contained in a letter sent to Mr Wilson.
We now have the advantage of videoconferencing and documents can be sent as email attachments. We have all sorts of modern communications and, one would hope, the occasions on which His Majesty cannot personally perform royal functions because he is abroad would be reduced. I entirely accept my noble friend Lord Janvrin’s point that ceremonial occasions are best performed in person and I suggest that important constitutional functions should be performed by the sovereign personally. The Lord Privy Seal emphasised the role of the sovereign in giving consent to legislation. Can he answer the question of whether, in principle, His Majesty could signify his consent to legislation from abroad, sending his signature by email—a point raised by my noble friend? Equally, could His Majesty appear by videolink from abroad to preside over a Privy Council meeting? These important functions should be performed by the sovereign personally.
My third question concerns the scope of the powers of Counsellors of State. There are limits on these powers, as we have heard: Counsellors of State may not dissolve Parliament, except on the express instructions of the sovereign; they may not grant any rank, title or dignity of the peerage. But, in academic debates, the question has arisen of whether there are implied limits on the powers of the counsellors. Professor Vernon Bogdanor, in his book The Monarchy and the Constitution, quoted a memo written in 1954 by Sir Edward Ford, assistant private secretary to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Sir Edward said that Counsellors of State have no power to make decisions. They are,
“if one may say it without disrespect to their persons—merely a piece of constitutional machinery—the nearest thing to a human rubber stamp that has perhaps yet been devised.”
Professor Bogdanor pointed out that the legislation provides no procedure for what should happen if the Counsellors of State disagree. He said that is because the question is “absurd”, since the counsellors have no decision-making power.
Another distinguished constitutional scholar, Professor Rodney Brazier, took a different view in his 2005 article in the Cambridge Law Journal. He said that, if the King were seriously indisposed and could not express a view, counsellors may have to take decisions to deal with urgent matters—for example, the sudden death of the Prime Minister. Can the Minister illuminate us, or at least give some guidance, on whether the Counsellors of State are merely instruments of the King’s will or have an independent decision-making function where necessary?
I shall raise my fourth point tentatively because of its sensitivity. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has already referred to it. The noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, made a football analogy, saying that it is valuable to have two further players on the bench. I would respectfully suggest that it is a curious feature of the Bill to retain two people on the team sheet who will not play any part in the match. Of course, I understand why that is.
My final point is to express hope that the Government may think it time to conduct a general review of the provisions of the 1937 Act, as amended, to see whether they are appropriate for the modern world or can be improved. This little Bill does not provide an opportunity to resolve these questions but I hope the Government will consider them.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, the British constitution is an extremely strange animal. The Bill shines a light into one of its darkest corners. How many of the general public know that there are such things as Counsellors of State? How many could name them? If they heard who they were, how many would think that this was a sensible current arrangement?
The noble Lord the Leader of the House helpfully said how many times the Counsellors of State have officiated in that role in recent decades, but I do not think he said what they did. I would find it extremely interesting to know what, in practice, it has been necessary for them to do. This will give us some sense of how they might be used in the future.
Obviously, I support the appointment of the Earl of Wessex and Princess Anne, both of whom clearly have the commitment and experience to do the job well. Indeed, both have done it in the past. They were on the bench and had what is normally the great ignominy of being dropped from the squad altogether. Now, at a rather more advanced age, they have been brought back to the squad and definitely strengthen it immeasurably.
The situation at the minute, given what the noble Lord, Lord True, said about only working royals being asked to fulfil the roles of Counsellors of State, is clearly extremely precarious and has been for some time. The last State Opening was performed by Prince Charles, now King Charles, with Prince William as the second Counsellor of State in attendance. Suppose, however, that Prince William had contracted Covid on the eve of the State Opening. There would still have been a requirement for two Counsellors of State. Instead of Prince William, the choice would have rested between Prince Andrew and Princess Beatrice. I do not think the country would have thought that an acceptable position to find ourselves in.
A number of noble Lords have suggested that we ought to have a root-and-branch look at who might be Counsellors of State. One can think of ways in which the situation could be easily improved—for example, inserting the word “working”, albeit with some appropriate definition, to cover those members of the Royal Family who would be eligible to be Counsellors of State.
Given the many other pressing issues facing the country, I suggest that we should not be spending a huge amount of time looking at this now, because what we have before us today is a perfectly good, reasonable and workable temporary measure—if quite a long-term one—to deal with the problems of the existing Counsellors of State. For today, I am very happy to support the Bill. It gets us out of a hole that, at some point, it would be a good idea to fill in.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Lord Privy Seal for his detailed explanation of the Bill when he opened the debate. I also thank the House of Lords Library for its very helpful and comprehensive paper, which actually answers a number of the questions that were raised by noble Lords in this debate. I am sure that the Minister will make use of it.
I smiled when the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred to the constitutional machinery of Counsellors of State. Those of us who have been candidates at elections often remember being told that we were a legal necessity for the election, but our role was important in that context nonetheless.
This is a very simple, straightforward proposal. We have strayed into debate on wider issues that may be addressed in the legislation, but we have quite a straightforward and moderate measure before us today. It has the advantage, unlike so much other legislation, of being precise and very clear. The purpose is to ensure that Counsellors of State are available when His Majesty wishes to delegate certain duties. The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, asked what would happen if the Duke of Suffolk were to come over to the UK and try to assume responsibilities. Under the provisions of the legislation, the monarch delegates responsibilities; people do not take them on of their own accord.
I can think of no more appropriate members of the Royal Household to take on these two positions as extra Counsellors of State. As has been referred to, both have previously acted as Counsellors of State but were then moved as the line of succession changed—we will have to look at some of the gender issues in this at some point—and others reached the age of majority and became Counsellors of State. Princess Anne was a Counsellor of State from 1971 to 2003, and the Earl of Wessex from 1985 to 2005, when Prince Harry reached the age of 21. Their experience in that role is something that cannot be denied. They both know what is expected of them and how to perform their functions. It is of course open to other members of the Royal Family to carry out other ceremonial events, but Counsellors of State have very specific functions, as delegated by the sovereign.
There are other issues relevant to this legislation but they are not for discussion today, or indeed in this legislation. The measure before us today is entirely appropriate and proportionate. Unlike many other pieces of legislation, it does exactly what it says on the tin.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. There have been some very interesting contributions, and some with ambitions to range quite widely, even to include inclement weather in Scotland. We should recall that this legislation follows a message from His Majesty the King to Parliament. It reflects the wish of His Majesty the King. Most who have spoken in this debate support the legislation and wish to enable that to be enacted. I am very grateful for the broad support.
I accept, of course, that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, is entitled to her view. I am sure that, as and when the Green Party forms a Government, it will not only abolish the monarchy but join with the view of Sir Keir Starmer on abolishing your Lordships’ House. However, we are a long way away from a Green Government, and it was heartening to hear from all other noble Lords who spoke the genuine affection, admiration and high regard that your Lordships’ House holds for His Majesty. I am delighted to reiterate, on behalf of all noble Lords, our support and gratitude.
It was heartening also to hear your Lordships’ warm support for the broad Royal Family, as expressed by my noble friend Lord Cormack, and the great admiration expressed—rightly, in my judgment—including at the end by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal and the Earl of Wessex, who have been and are so outstanding in their continuing public duties.
I was asked about the order of the names in the Bill. I do not think that there is anything sinister in it. I note that it is in one order in the Long Title, in a different order in the preamble and in another order in Clause 1. I believe the drafters of the Bill have sought to reflect equality.
The noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, who spoke from a position of great and unique authority, told us about the necessity of the legislation, how it touches mostly the routine nature of everyday government, and the case for fast-tracking. In some of the things he said he expressed a very strong view about how the nature of government should ideally be conducted, which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, courteously acknowledged. There is always room for innovation, of course, but I was very struck by what the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, said on these matters.
The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, who has taken a great interest, said that this was a necessary Bill and should pass. I agree.
My noble friend Lord Balfe asked what would happen if somebody turned up and sought to exercise the role. With respect, as the noble Baroness opposite said, this seems a little far-fetched. Counsellors of State have been undertaking royal functions for 85 years under this scheme with no such problems arising. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, wisely reminded us, it is ultimately for the sovereign to determine who undertakes these functions.
My noble friend also asked why not others. The approach proposed is a limited modification to the Regency Acts, whereby two individuals are added to the list of Counsellors of State. Although it would have been possible to add others, this proposal provides the right balance between giving additional flexibility and maintaining the underlying structure of the original Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who has intimated his intention potentially to raise these matters in Committee, proposed that individuals be removed from the pool of Counsellors of State. He will have noted—indeed, I am grateful that he acknowledged this—that, as I set out, the Royal Household has confirmed that, in practice, working members of the Royal Family will be called on to act as Counsellors of State. As he acknowledged, the legislation already contains provisions whereby Counsellors of State are excepted from duties if they are overseas. I hope that addresses his concern.
The noble Lord also suggested in the amendments that he has put before your Lordships’ House that perhaps some other person might decide on people’s suitability to be Counsellors of State. He might reflect that this would introduce complexity into the scheme where it is not required.
The noble Lord also raised transparency. I am a strong supporter of the principle of transparency. I point out that the list of Counsellors of State is already available on the royal website, so there is no need for a legislative requirement to do this. In addition, the legislation is already clear as to who the Counsellors of State are. Moreover, when Counsellors of State are appointed the current practice is that Letters Patent are made public. It is therefore clear. I hope I have addressed some of the noble Lord’s concerns and that he might not feel it necessary to return to these in Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, whose reading slightly differs from my reading in my library, raised a number of significant and interesting points. I think I have dealt with the issue of bad weather. The weather would have to be truly exceptional to interrupt the conduct of the Government’s affairs.
On videoconferencing, this idea is always before us and was in the age of Covid, but I believe the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, addressed that point.
The noble Lord also asked about the scope of powers of Counsellors of State. In recent years, going back to 2010, the practice has been that Privy Council meetings, which can be one of the roles of Counsellors of State, have been arranged around visits by the sovereign, but looking at the past practice of Privy Council meetings—for example, in 1987, 1991 and 1994—Counsellors of State undertook the following tasks; this is also in response to the noble Lord, Lord Newby. They have approved Privy Counsellor appointments, amended charters, agreed Channel Island orders, agreed university orders, approved statutory instruments and, an unusual task which falls to the Privy Council, closed burial grounds. In 1999 the then Prince of Wales and the Princess Royal convened a Privy Council meeting required to approve a Prorogation of Parliament at the request of Mr Blair while the monarch was unavailable overseas. Counsellors of State can also undertake non-Privy Council business such as, as the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, reminded us, receiving the credentials of ambassadors. The powers of Counsellors of State have been used, but it is not the norm. Wherever possible, diaries are organised such that Privy Council meetings revolve around the diary of the monarch.
I noted the noble Lord’s suggestion and indeed that of the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, for a wider review. At this time, the Government are not persuaded of the necessity of that, and I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that there are perhaps more pressing issues at this time. While some Members of the House may feel this is an opportunity to make wider changes, in our submission it is not the appropriate place to undertake wider revisions. What we have before us is a small and focused Bill. The proposals in the Bill are modifications of the provisions that will ensure that there is a greater pool of Counsellors of State when needed, reducing any potential risk of delay in public business. Any further reforms of the nature suggested by some who spoke would require consideration of any wider constitutional significance and implications. We are here responding to a specific context in response to His Majesty’s message and seeking practical steps to add further resilience and support to His Majesty’s capacity to undertake his official role. That is where, in my submission, we should rest at present, and I rather agree, therefore, with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, as I have said.
As many of your Lordships noted, there are good practical reasons for the provisions proposed, and I welcome the support shown for the Bill today. Your Lordships will be aware that Committee is on Wednesday. Therefore, I am ready to discuss any questions or issues that any noble Lord might wish to raise before then. I remind the House, as so many who have spoken have done—and I reiterate my gratitude for the welcome given to the legislation—that the purpose of the Bill is very simple and straightforward, and I am confident that this loyal House of Lords will respond to His Majesty’s message and support this legislation, and I submit that this legislation commends itself to the House.
Bill read a second time.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, as my noble friend the Deputy Chief Whip informed the House last week, the deadline for amendments for the Marshalled List for Committee on this Bill is in 30 minutes’ time. Therefore, amendments should be in by 5.19 pm.
Lord True (Con)
Obviously, time has been allowed for the laying of amendments. I am grateful for that reminder to the House.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Counsellors of State Bill [HL]
Wednesday 23rd November 2022
(1 year, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Counsellors of State Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 66-I Marshalled list for Committee - (21 Nov 2022)
Viscount Stansgate
“(c) on the death of a person named in paragraph (a) or (b), any person named by His Majesty the King by Order in Council.(1A) A statutory instrument containing an Order under subsection (1)(c) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I will not unduly take up the time of the Committee in introducing this amendment because my sense is that there are many Members who would not necessarily want to waste scarce parliamentary time unnecessarily.
My amendment is simple and straightforward: it proposes that, once the Bill has reached the statute book, if a Counsellor of State dies then the King may provide a replacement. It does not say the King has to do so; it simply says that he may if he wants to, and proposed new Section (1A) in the amendment provides the mechanism for doing so with the suitable involvement of Parliament. That is it.
The amendment is designed to be helpful. After all, the Bill is before us because the King has suggested that changing the Regency Act 1937 would be helpful to him in the discharge of his duties, and has asked us that two new names be added for life to the list of Counsellors of State. The Committee will know that both Princess Anne and the Earl of Wessex have already served in this role in years gone by.
As the Leader of the House said at Second Reading, it is the custom and practice for Counsellors of State to act in pairs, and he gave several examples in his speech. We saw that with our own eyes at the State Opening of Parliament when the Prince of Wales, as he then was, and Prince William, as he then was, acted as Counsellors of State and made it possible for this Session of Parliament to be opened. I believe that is the only time that Her late Majesty the Queen ever delegated these functions to Counsellors of State because of illness.
The Bill before us will solve the immediate problem and my amendment seeks only to avoid another, and to save some time. If one of the new Counsellors of State proposed in the Bill were to predecease the King, action would have to be taken again. We might even have to have a new Bill. Why? Because, as the Committee well knows, underlying the Bill is the fact that at least two of the existing Counsellors of State would not be publicly acceptable in the role that they would then have. That is why the King has recognised that there is a problem and why he has suggested the solution outlined in the Bill. My amendment is designed merely to help the King in future, and I commend it to the Committee.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee reported on the Bill in terms that are regrettably rare nowadays. It said:
“This Bill contains no delegated powers.”
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, has not had the opportunity here to complain about delegated powers, and I am very pleased about that. I should be very sorry to see a delegated power introduced at this stage, particularly a delegated power conferred on His Majesty. In 1867, Walter Bagehot wrote that the monarch has three rights—the right to consult, the right to encourage and the right to warn. The monarch has no right and no power to produce delegated legislation. I can think of no precedent for the Crown having a delegated power—certainly not since 1689.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, presses his amendment with good intent. He has expressed his views at every stage of this process with the utmost civility and courtesy. I thank him for that.
I understand that, from his perspective, he seeks to add a certain flexibility or, as he would see it, some insurance to the system. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, implied in his important intervention, it would add further rigidity, novelty and potentially delay to the procedure. The steps in the amendment are not required and they are unwelcome. The amendment goes considerably further than the limited modification proposed in the Bill. As I submitted to your Lordships at Second Reading, the nature of this Bill flows from a message from His Majesty. I think it was the feeling of the House at Second Reading that the Bill is appropriate and proportionate to the circumstances in which we find ourselves.
The noble Viscount is proposing a wider change to the underlying architecture of the legislation. As indicated in the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, it would grant the sovereign a new authority—one which was not referenced in the King’s message—but does not indicate on what basis any such decision would be made. It would also introduce a novel parliamentary process into these matters. In this respect, it is a departure from the current framework and the proposition before us, and the Government do not believe that it is necessary or desirable.
I repeat that the Government believe that the approach suggested in the Bill is a reasonable and practical solution in the current context. The Bill as currently drafted will create a sufficient pool of counsellors who will hold this role for their lifetimes. As the noble Viscount will understand, with the effluxion of time, the order of succession will evolve and so will the situation once this Bill becomes an Act.
Although I acknowledge the spirit in which this amendment is tabled, the history of the Regency Acts demonstrates that it is a challenging task for Parliament or any legislator to predict the future. I suggest that we do not seek to do so here but seek rather to respond to the task at hand and proceed in the light of the message that the sovereign has sent us. It indicates his wishes and, I feel, the wishes of the House, that this practical, limited and moderate approach should be taken at the present time. I urge the noble Viscount to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I would say only that it has almost been worth it to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I of course beg leave to withdraw my amendment. I hope that this Bill will succeed in its intention. Time will tell how events will turn out in the future.
Lord Berkeley
“and as if they excluded—(c) His Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex,(d) His Royal Highness the Duke of York, and(e) any other person who in the opinion of the Lord Chancellor has not in the immediately preceding 2 years undertaken Royal duties on a regular basis.”
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, in speaking briefly to Amendment 2 I can also say that I will not be moving Amendment 3 because, in his reply at Second Reading, the Minister gave an excellent and wide response. Amendment 2 is designed to formalise the Counsellors of State after the accession of King Charles, adding the Earl of Wessex and the Princess Royal to the list.
It is constitutionally very important that when the monarch is not there, this will allow the Government to continue, because we have a constitutional monarchy. That means that some of the counsellors—all of them, probably—come from the family. It is a large family and I know that King Charles has previously said that he thought it should be smaller. I do not think he has said that since he inherited the Throne, but there we are. The interesting thing to me is, what is the concept of a working royal? The counsellors obviously support the monarch in his constitutional role, so, as I think the Lord Privy Seal said at Second Reading, they clearly should be both in the UK and working, if for no other reason than that they know what is going on.
Parliamentary approval of counsellors is necessary, too, which is what we are talking about today, because there has been a history—if not recently—of monarchs going a little mad or otherwise breaking the law, as Parliament saw it. It is right that we prepare ourselves for the future. While it is also right that Parliament agree to the monarch’s proposal to add two Counsellors of State, I do not see why we cannot at the same time remove those who are no longer apparently thought suitable.
The Lord Privy Seal said at Second Reading that
“the legislation already contains provisions whereby Counsellors of State are excepted from duties if they are overseas”
and that
“in practice, working members of the Royal Family will be called on”.—[Official Report, 21/11/22; col. 1194.]
My Amendment 2 just tries to clarify that. Why not name the people concerned, rather than having to interpret what a working royal is?
I do not know whether this is from embarrassment or fear of a media frenzy. I hope it is not, but it is an important constitutional issue. It has nothing to do with who has what title or what clothes they wear for television appearances, or anything else like that. If the members of the family are not working royals, there is a fear, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, mentioned in his excellent speech on Monday, that the Duke of Sussex would jet in and claim that he was working because he thought that would be a good idea. A definition would be a good thing, and I see no reason why they should not be named in the Bill.
I am not going to press this amendment because I support the Bill, on the whole. However, a little clarification from the Minister, if he is able, would be very helpful. I beg to move.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, it seems unnecessary to exclude the Duke of Sussex and the Duke of York who, for reasons we all know and understand, are not going to be performing royal duties in the immediate future in any event. As to the drafting of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, in proposed new paragraph (e), that there should be excluded
“any other person who in the opinion of the Lord Chancellor has not in the … preceding 2 years undertaken Royal duties on a regular basis”,
this leaves rather open for analysis what “regular” means. Does it mean once a month, once a week or once a year? What if they are ill for a period of time? The idea that the Lord Chancellor should determine this question without any criteria seems rather unsatisfactory. Mr Dominic Raab has more than enough to do at the moment.
Lord Balfe (Con)
I will make one small point. We will have five Counsellors of State, two of whom are not going to be used, namely the Dukes of Sussex and of York. That means that, since you have to have two Counsellors of State acting if the monarch is away, if either the Princess Royal or the Duke of Wessex were unavailable, we would have only Princess Beatrice left. We do not have anyone else on the reserves bench, so to speak.
I doubt whether we have heard anything, but noble Lords will recall that I suggested that the Princess of Wales should added to the list. I still think that would be a sensible idea because she will of course become a Counsellor of State when her husband succeeds to the Crown. Again, I will not support any votes, but the palace should look at this because you only need one person to be ill, and you have Princess Beatrice as a Counsellor of State. Although she is probably acceptable, she is virtually unknown.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
I apologise for not being able to be here on Monday for Second Reading; I was in Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania, chairing a conference on press freedom organised by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
However, I will make one point. At an earlier stage, I was slightly concerned that there seemed to be a sharp intake of breath in some quarters in relation to whether we ought to discuss this. That concerned me. We need to reaffirm the sovereignty of this Parliament. This is a constitutional monarchy: Parliament is responsible for considering all these kinds of Bills, and it is right that we do so. It is right that my noble friends Lord Stansgate and Lord Berkeley—I note that both are hereditary, which is interesting, but that is another story—should be able to move amendments, and that we have a debate on this.
This is especially so when the whole role, function and composition of this second Chamber is being reviewed. We ought to recognise that a number of constitutional questions are being considered at the moment, and Parliament should have oversight of any such Bills in a constitutional monarchy. It is right that we hear from my noble friends Lord Stansgate and Lord Berkeley, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and anyone else who wants to comment on this.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, it is of course right, and what the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said is entirely justified: Parliament has a role. But, in this particular case, we can rely upon the good judgment and discretion of the King, and we can recognise that he is a father and a brother as well as a king.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I will make a more lawyerly point. I heard the wise intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on what is regular and the powers of the Lord Chancellor. I will not comment on either of those points. But I heard the noble Lord say, in moving the amendment, that his wish was to provide some clarity. I respectfully suggest that its wording actually does the precise opposite, because he has used the verb “excluded”—although, when he moved it, he used the word “removed”. In the context of this legislation, verbs are important. A Counsellor of State can be excepted if they are overseas, for example, which means that they cannot act but they do not lose their place in the pecking order. If they are disqualified, they lose their place in the pecking order, and the next person in line takes that place. It is not immediately clear to me whether “excluded” is “excepted” or “disqualified”. With the greatest respect, I suggest that it is this amendment that ought to be excluded.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I also apologise for not being here on Monday; I had to handle some serious matters in Berwick. Yes, the constitutional monarch has consulted, and this House considered this at Second Reading and agreed the terms as in the legislation. So there is no question of the supremacy of Parliament not being recognised. The suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is almost like rubbing it in—it is just one of those words we would not want to use. We should restrict the Bill to what was asked of us. This was considered, and therefore the wording is there.
Another thing is that we can never predict anyone’s future. I could be ill tomorrow, or I could be dead, and that would be the end of me. Anticipating what may or may not happen in legislation is always pretty difficult, so leave it well alone.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I have considerable sympathy with the thoughts behind this amendment, because the debate has shown that there is a certain amount of confusion about which members of the body of Counsellors of State will undertake royal duties, do undertake royal duties or might be asked to do so. In addition to the Duke of Sussex and the Duke of York, Princess Beatrice—although I might be wrong about this—is also not a working royal. That means that three members of this extraordinarily small body will never be asked to perform the function, which just seems strange.
An amendment of this sort would enable matters to be clarified. There are a number of deficiencies in its drafting, some of which were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. It also raises in my mind the question of what would happen if we were to exclude two or three Counsellors of State. Who would replace them? Would they be replaced and, if so, on what basis? There is ambiguity. In an ideal world, this ambiguity would be dealt with by consideration of these matters.
For example, it is up to the King to decide which members of his family he considers working members of it. He decides who acts as a working member of the Royal Family, so I think we could get round all that. However, as we debated on Monday, once you start down this route, it takes quite a lot of time and effort to deal satisfactorily with all the wrinkles. Given everything else that lies before us, I am not sure it is a priority. However, one idea is that the work could be done on this to the extent that, at some point in the future, there may need to be another Counsellors of State Bill to include an additional person. It would be a good thing if this could be cleared up at the same time.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, listening to noble Lords talking about the definition of working royals, I sometimes think we ought to look at the definition of working Peers, over which similar anomalies arise. Monday’s significant debate made it clear that very few of us have considered this issue before. It is not something that we deal with every day. We debated the Bill at length but it is wrong to chastise those who want further debate. I would have thought, however, that His Royal Highness, the palace authorities and Parliament would have given considerable thought to whether the Bill would deal with the problems that may occur if there were not adequate members to fulfil the responsibilities of Counsellors of State.
I appreciate that my noble friend is not pressing his amendment to a vote; I think the House is quite anxious to see this legislation go to the other place and get on to the statute book. We quite like the idea of Bills that start in your Lordships’ House and then go to the other place, rather than the other way round. Therefore, we should send the Bill to the House of Commons, as it is now, unamended, as the noble Lords who proposed these amendments have suggested.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for putting this matter before us. Perhaps it would not be inappropriate at the start to thank the Official Opposition and the noble Lord, Lord, Lord Newby, for their support on behalf of their parties, which I am sure will be noted and much appreciated.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, who always likes to bowl a different ball, as it were, that if he had been here at Second Reading he would have known that no one has ever sought to say that this matter should not be discussed. In fact, His Majesty’s Government have presented a Bill before Parliament for the single purpose of enabling Parliament to consider the matter. His Majesty the King himself has invited us to discuss the matter, so it is 180 degrees away from the position that the noble Lord sought to represent. I cannot go into the point about the future of your Lordships’ House, but it was not my party that recently put that matter before the newspapers.
We believe that this amendment is a disproportionate step. What the Government are doing, as referenced in the King’s message, is a practical and limited modification that allows royal functions to be delegated to a wider pool of Counsellors of State. It is a practical and proportionate response. The Bill follows established precedents. There is no precedent for a measure to exclude individuals from acting as Counsellors of State. Any further changes to the pool of Counsellors of State by, for example, removing certain individuals, would require more fundamental amendment to the Regency Act 1937. These arrangements have been in place for 85 years and have, in my submission, served us well.
The Bill follows the precedent, as I said at Second Reading, of 1953, when Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother was added, and adds the Princess Royal and the Earl of Wessex to the pool of Counsellors of State. I must remind my noble friend Lord Balfe, who suggested that this was a very narrow pool, that he did not mention the fact that Her Majesty the Queen Consort and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales are Counsellors of State, so the pool is slightly wider than he suggested. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, to exclude individuals would be a substantial change that departs both from precedent and the approach set out in the King’s message to both Houses. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, the approach set out in His Majesty’s message is appropriate and effective. I follow the noble Baroness opposite in saying that your Lordships should respect it, having considered it and reflected on it as we have.
I intend no disservice to my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister, for whom I have the very highest regard, but I have noted criticisms in your Lordships’ House of the fact that the office of Lord Chancellor is now held by a Member of the House of Commons. I have heard that often at this Dispatch Box. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, to allow the Lord Chancellor to exclude those individuals who have not undertaken royal duties in the preceding two years is, in our submission, an unnecessary addition, introducing complexity into the scheme where it is not required.
The amendment proposes a significant change to the underlying Act and shifts the decision-making to a member of the Government. It would now be for the Lord Chancellor to make a judgment on what counts—and what does not—as regularly undertaking royal duties. The word “regular” is subjective, and that is a lot to load on one individual. It might be asked “What is regular?” I remind the House that there are working members of the Royal Family, some very senior, who undertake public duties but have never been Counsellors of State and are not intended to be. As was wisely put to us by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and my noble friend Lord Wolfson, this approach would add complexity where previously there was none and impose an unnecessary duty on the Lord Chancellor.
The amendment must be regarded as practically unnecessary if the Bill is to pass. The Regency Act already includes provisions—the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, was kind enough to allude to our debate at Second Reading—whereby Counsellors of State are excepted from duties if they are overseas. I repeat what I set out at Second Reading: the Royal Household has confirmed that, in practice, working members of the Royal Family will be called on to act as Counsellors of State and diaries will be arranged to make this practicable. I think it is well known and understood who those persons are. The Bill as it is drafted and the flexible constitutional arrangements in place ensure that the effect of the amendment is already achieved. In my submission, and I believe this is the view of most noble Lords who spoke at Second Reading and today, that is sufficient and nothing more is required.
The underlying structure provided by the legislation has proved effective and it would be a mistake to seek to modify its effect in response to short-term contexts which are, of course, subject to evolution and change. To conclude, for the reasons I have set out and those set out by other noble Lords who have spoken helpfully in this debate, I hope I can convince the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that his amendment is redundant and disproportionate. In fact, it would add complexity and subjectivity to the system and is not suitable to the intent of this practical and precise Bill. I urge him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I am grateful to so many noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. Clearly, the amendment as it stands had many defects in it and I apologise for that. I spent a lot of time talking to people about what the right solution was, but I think the key thing is we have had a good debate. Many different noble Lords have expressed their views, and from my point of view I think the Bill is fine for the moment—of course I support it. I think it is an issue which we will have to look at in not the short term but in the longer term, as it may be useful to come back and review it again in a more structured way. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, this may be a convenient point to remind noble Lords that the deadline for any Report amendments will be in 30 minutes’ time—that is at 5.02 pm. Amendments can be tabled at the Public Bill Office in the usual way.
Counsellors of State Bill [HL]
Wednesday 23rd November 2022
(1 year, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Counsellors of State Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 66-I Marshalled list for Committee - (21 Nov 2022)
Counsellors of State Bill [HL]
Wednesday 23rd November 2022
(1 year, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Counsellors of State Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 66-I Marshalled list for Committee - (21 Nov 2022)
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I again place on record, as I did at an earlier stage, my gratitude to His Majesty’s Official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats for their support in expediting this measure. We have heard important arguments put forward in the House. I believe that we have acquitted our responsibility in responding to the message from His Majesty. I thank all those who have been involved in putting this measure together at such short notice.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Lord Privy Seal for his comments. This Bill has been a learning curve for many in your Lordships’ House. In conducting our debate, we have reached a sensible conclusion which concurs with the wishes of His Majesty the King. This Bill is a proportionate, moderate measure, which has the support of this House. Other issues may arise in due course that the House will wish to look at. This is not something that happens every day. I thank the noble Lord for his courtesy in engaging with the Opposition at all times about the detail of the Bill. We greatly appreciate it. We also thank those officials who have worked on bringing this Bill to the House.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I echo the comments of my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition. I thank the Minister for the way in which he has dealt with all the issues and for the way in which he has taken the Bill through the House. It is not every day that a Bill goes through in three days. I also thank him for his personal courtesy to me, not least with regard to the amendment that I moved earlier. It is quite clear that he and others would have preferred it if I had not tabled it at all.
We have waited 70 years for a Bill of this kind. I am tempted to say that, having waited 70 years for a bus, I hope, on this occasion, another one does not come along at once. I hope that this Bill will succeed in its purpose and provide the resilience for the constitutional arrangements to which the noble Lord and others have referred. In the fullness of time, we may have to come back to it, but I hope this is not for a very long time. Meanwhile, I wish the Bill well. As has been said before, it is not often that Bills go from this House to another place. It will do the other place no harm to find that this Bill reaches them from this direction, rather than the other way around.
Counsellors of State Bill [Lords] (Allocation of Time)
Thursday 1st December 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Counsellors of State Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 66-I Marshalled list for Committee - (21 Nov 2022)
Counsellors of State Bill [Lords]
Thursday 1st December 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Counsellors of State Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 66-I Marshalled list for Committee - (21 Nov 2022)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Oliver Dowden)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It is a great pleasure to be before the House following His Majesty the King’s message to both Houses and the Humble Address. Parliament has affirmed its willingness to bring forward this Bill and deal with it expeditiously, and the Government are responding in kind. We recognise that it is pivotal to the smooth working of Parliament and Government that royal authority is always available, which includes granting the final, formal legal approval to the decisions that are made here in this House.
The Counsellors of State Bill is designed to ensure continuity in how the monarchy fulfils its core constitutional role. As right hon. and hon. Members will be aware, the sovereign performs a significant number of royal functions that are key to the day-to-day machinery of government of the United Kingdom. These vary from assenting to legislation, granting charters, and appointing bishops, judges and King’s counsel, to convening the Privy Council. Many of these functions require the monarch to act in person. If the monarch is temporarily unavailable, these vital constitutional and legal roles must still be performed.
This place has previously identified and resolved the issue. We have a tradition of legislating for such contingencies and adapting to historical context and requirements. Indeed, this Bill is a modification of the existing Regency Acts 1937 to 1953. Section 6 of the Regency Act 1937 provides for Counsellors of State to whom royal functions can be delegated when the sovereign is temporarily unavailable.
I will briefly set out the functioning of the Acts, specifically with regard to Counsellors of State. The delegation of royal functions is made by the sovereign through letters patent for the period of their absence. These set out the statutory limitations of the delegation; usually, they also specify what the functions are and which functions are not delegated. The sovereign may revoke or vary the delegation by letters patent.
In practice, this creates a pool of all the Counsellors of State who can carry out such delegated functions. Counsellors of State exercise royal functions jointly or by such number of them as may be specified. It is important to note that, generally, Counsellors of State have tended to act in pairs. Those who are absent from the United Kingdom during the period of the delegation may be excepted as per section 6(2) of the 1937 Act. Under the current arrangements, the Counsellors of State are the spouse of the sovereign and the four persons who are next in the line of succession to the Crown, excluding those who are disqualified under the Act—for example, due to age.
During the reign of Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth, Counsellors of State were routinely appointed when she travelled abroad. This occurred more than 30 times over the last few decades. Indeed, hon. Members may recall that earlier this year, during the state opening of Parliament, this power was used when Her late Majesty was unable to attend.
The Bill follows precedent in legislating for additional Counsellors of State. Shortly after her accession in 1953, Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth asked Parliament to legislate for Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother to be a Counsellor of State. In accordance with that request, Parliament passed the Regency Act 1953, which added the Queen Mother as a Counsellor of State for her lifetime, to deliver on Her late Majesty’s wishes. Today, as we bring the Bill before the House, we are guided by that precedent in the substantive approach and the procedure.
The Bill proposes a precise and limited modification to the provisions in the Regency Act in respect of Counsellors of State. In line with the King’s message to both Houses of Parliament, the Bill will add His Royal Highness the Earl of Wessex and Forfar and Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal to the list of Counsellors of State for the duration of their lifetimes. In turn, they bring more than 50 years of extensive experience to the role. I trust that all hon. Members will agree that few individuals are better qualified to undertake these vital constitutional duties should the need arise.
Furthermore, the royal family has confirmed that in practice it will be working members of the royal family who are called on to act as Counsellors of State, and that their diaries will be arranged to ensure that that is the case. The Bill supports the monarch, our Head of State, in discharging his constitutional duties. It guarantees the continuity that we in Government and Parliament depend on to serve the British people. At this time of heightened sporting interest, as one noble Lord succinctly put it in the other place, the Bill
“will give much-needed strength and depth to the bench”,—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2022; Vol. 825, c. 1184]
which always a wise strategy. For all those reasons, I commend the Bill to the House.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
I welcome the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to his place in our first formal debate in the House. I hope that it will be a constructive one. Although there are a great many things that we often disagree about, this Bill is not one of them. It is a simple, straightforward piece of legislation that provides a solution for a specific issue, as he said in his opening remarks.
By expanding the number of Counsellors of State who can formally deputise for His Majesty the King in his absence, the Bill addresses a potential constitutional problem. It is a fact that some aspects of our government machinery rely on the sovereign’s authority. It follows that a form of that authority must always be available to grant formal legal approval to a range of decisions by the Government and Parliament.
Counsellors of State may also perform a number of necessary functions, such as attending Privy Council meetings and receiving the credentials of new ambassadors to the country. Although the Regency Act 1937 sets out the list of Counsellors of State, it is for the King to delegate functions and decide who acts in the role. The Bill is intended to ensure that he can do so from a group of working royals by adding two further Counsellors of State, both of whom are already experienced and well respected in the role, as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said. This is not a broader debate about our constitution; it is about the narrow purpose of providing His Majesty with flexibility in who can formally represent him.
The Opposition do not oppose this practical measure. Although the Bill has a narrow focus, I know that hon. Members in this House and the other place have raised concerns about the wider issue of the Regency Act. I welcome assurances from Government Ministers in the other place that only working royals can act as Counsellors of State. That is an important assurance that will go alongside the Bill.
As I have said, the substance of the Bill is simple. It is clear that the existing legislation does not provide a mechanism to expand the number of Counsellors of State, which is now needed due to circumstances that Parliament could not have foreseen when the current Act was passed, so I and my hon. Friends will be supporting the Bill today.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
I rise to strongly support the Bill. It is clearly a non-political piece of legislation, as the royal message from His Majesty the King to Parliament made clear, and will ensure that he is ably supported in the discharge of his constitutional duties. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said, the Bill follows long-established precedent. Her late Majesty the Queen, of blessed and glorious memory, asked her Parliament to do the same thing after her accession to the throne, and thus Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother was added to the list of Counsellors of State in 1953.
The daily workload of the sovereign is, of course, significant. His Majesty is extremely industrious and absolutely passionate about his work, as we all know, and always has been. In that way, as in many others, the King takes after the late Queen, if I may say so. We are lucky to have him and we should support him in this endeavour.
In rare circumstances—for example, when overseas or when indisposed—it might occasionally be necessary to appoint Counsellors of State. As we heard, that happened 30 times in the last reign. The Bill will broaden the pool of options available to His Majesty. The presence of the sovereign is sometimes required by law, or in the alternative, the formal approval of a Counsellor of State or a royal sign manual. The Bill will allow options to be deployed if His Majesty wishes. It will also prevent delay to the business of the Government of the day, as the noble Lord Janvrin, a former private secretary to the late Queen, said from the Cross Benches in the other place last week.
His Royal Highness the Earl of Wessex and Forfar, and Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal command the confidence of the King, and the approval and respect of the people of this country, and for good reason. Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal is well known and highly respected for her work ethic, her drive, and her pragmatic approach. As we know, she carries out hundreds of engagements annually, and quietly and assiduously undertakes her duties with enormous skill. Like the Princess, His Royal Highness the Earl of Wessex has been a trusted Counsellor of State before, and he will likewise be a welcome addition to the pool of options available to the King.
Even in the current world of online contracts, virtual meetings and automated signatures there is still, I am sure the House will agree, a practical need for Counsellors of State. Not everything can or should be done via online media platforms. The functions of the monarchy sometimes require physical presence—indeed, they often do, either for important legal reasons of state or for ceremonial reasons. As I said, not everything can or should be done via email. Parliament has set those requirements, and for good reason.
This is not a political Bill. It has nothing to do with royal or public finances or engagements. It is about allowing the sovereign expeditiously to clear his work every day. I read that His Majesty has a new red box, and as a former long-standing Minister of the Crown I recognise how important it is that such business is cleared efficiently. It is in the interests of good order and the administration of government that Parliament facilitates that. I support the way that His Majesty’s Government are proceeding with this matter, and I strongly support this Bill.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I will not detain the House for too long. The Bill is what it is, and it does what it says it will do. It is a pragmatic solution to a problem that has arisen, and it is by and large uncontentious and uncontroversial. For as long as the United Kingdom chooses to have a constitutional monarch, whose role includes the granting of Royal Assent to legislation, the appointment of judges and Ministers, as well as a host of other engagements and functions both at home and abroad, there is an identifiable need to extend the number of people who can deputise for the monarch when he or she is overseas, is unwell, or is for whatever reason unable to conduct those duties.
Given that two current Counsellors of State are, for different reasons, non-working royals and have withdrawn from public life, the proposed appointment of two new Counsellors of State who can exercise those royal functions when needs be makes sense. The Bill is a reasonable workaround that provides temporary solutions to the constraints of the Regency Acts, which state that Counsellors of State are the spouse of the monarch and the first four in the line of succession. Although the Bill gets us over that inconvenient hurdle, I suggest that the Government should find a more robust and enduring way of dealing with such situations, which will undoubtedly arise in the future.
I understand why the King would want to make his brother, the Earl of Wessex, and his sister, the Princess Royal, Counsellors of State, as both have previously performed that duty for the late Queen. As an aside, will the Minister explain why on the Bill as printed the Earl of Wessex seems to be given prominence ahead of the Princess Royal? I find it a strange order in which to put them. As a wider point, rather than having to revert once again to the Regency Act 1937, using the 1953 precedent that made the Queen Mother the additional Counsellor, as if she had been appointed at the same time as others, it would probably be better to find a more formalised way to appoint people to those positions. The Bill is a quick-fix solution to an immediate problem, but it does not get over the structural issues latent in the Regency Acts. I point the Minister to a well informed post by Dr Craig Prescott of Bangor University, writing for the University of London’s Constitution Unit. He says that this question will arise time and again until it is formally sorted, and that if there is to be, as we believe there will be, a more slimmed down royal family that focuses more on the direct line of succession, such issues will need to be addressed.
I have no doubt that the Bill will pass, but I suggest that the Government should eventually get round to looking at how Counsellors of State are appointed. That said, given the current state of the United Kingdom, I sincerely hope that this issue is somewhere around No. 101 in the Government’s list of 100 things they need to do. If it is not No. 101, I suggest it should be. At some point, however, it may be worth considering the issue again.
Everyone understands that, for a whole host of reasons, the monarch cannot always be available to perform their duties. That is why over the centuries, Counsellors of State have been appointed to assist the sovereign. The current Regency Acts provide for Counsellors of State because they are important to ensure that Government business can continue to run smoothly. As the 1937 Act states, Counsellors of State should be in place to
“prevent delay or difficulty in the despatch of public business.”
Much has changed since 1937, and I hope that when the Government get round to looking at this issue again, they will consider the revolution in communication and technology, which I understand the late Queen herself embraced to great effect during the covid lockdown. If the Bill is about improving procedures and ensuring good administrative practice, we should be looking to the future, embracing that technology, and finding a better solution, rather than simply looking back to 1937 and a time when the telegram was the fastest means of communication, and the ocean liner the quickest means of international travel. Is there a barrier to stop the King signing documents by means of an electronic signature? What is there to prevent formal royal correspondence from being done via email? Is there any legal impediment to the monarch appearing via a video link to join a meeting of the Privy Council? I do not see why any of that should be controversial, so perhaps the Minister could tell me whether or not such things are possible.
Finally, on the theme of modernisation, I suspect that many people will be asking what is the point of us examining how we can help the monarchy to modernise when certain parts of the institution seem stuck in the past. The treatment last week of Ngozi Fulani at Buckingham Palace was appalling, and I am delighted that—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The Bill before the House has a very narrow scope, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman could focus on that.
Brendan O’Hara
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Modernisation is vital, but the institution must help itself to modernise. This Bill is part of that. We will support the Bill today, and I thank you for your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
I rise briefly to add my support to the Bill, and to congratulate the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on his new role. The Bill has been brought in promptly, following a request from His Majesty the King in the royal message, and entirely appropriately, given that it is within a few weeks of his accession to the throne. It is therefore appropriate to ensure that sufficient Counsellors of State are available as may be required during the course of his reign. It is also entirely appropriate that the Government should put forward His Majesty’s brother and sister, both of whom, as was said earlier, have undertaken this role earlier in their lives. His Royal Highness the Earl of Wessex and Forfar was a Counsellor of State for 20 years from his 21st birthday, and Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal was Counsellor of State for 32 years, from her 21st birthday. They are both experienced in this role, and they clearly have the full confidence of His Majesty.
The important point for this House, which has been referenced by all speakers, is that His Majesty needs a sufficient pool of experienced individuals who are working members of the royal family. There is no doubt whatsoever about the extent to which both their Royal Highnesses are committed to the royal family. They have spent their entire working lives in public service, and towards the tail end of last year—a year affected by the covid pandemic —the Princess Royal undertook more royal engagements than any other member of the royal family, and I think two more than His Majesty, then Prince of Wales. The Earl of Wessex undertook more than 200 engagements during the course of that year. There is no doubt that they are entirely suited for the role, or that there is considerable public respect for both their Royal Highnesses, and I commend the Bill to the House.
Angela Rayner
With the leave of the House, I will keep my closing remarks short. We have been debating a Bill that serves one narrow purpose: to ensure that Counsellors of State are available when His Majesty requires one to deputise in his essential duties. I want to mention—I hope I can call him a friend—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis). I absolutely miss him and our exchanges, and I absolutely agree with his comments—[Interruption.] That is not to discourage Members currently on the Government Front Bench!
Angela Rayner
I live for days like this in Parliament. Never did I think when I was young that I would be debating such Bills with such hon. and distinguished Members. I agree with the right hon. and learned Member that online is great, but it is nice to keep some traditions and meet in person. We all recognise that.
The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) reminded me of my wonderful experience with Her late Majesty the Queen when I went on to the Privy Council, and we met via Zoom. That was nice. He also mentioned the practicalities of the Regency Act. I hope that one day, when time allows, we can sharpen some of that, but that is not before us today.
As hon. Members in all parties have recognised, the Bill makes a simple and straightforward change to existing law. It will help to prevent a possible future constitutional problem arising and provide the sovereign with sufficient options and flexibility. Labour Members believe that that is proportionate and reasonable, so we support the Bill’s Second Reading.
I also acknowledge the assurances given by Ministers on some of the wider issues that have arisen and thank them and the Palace for the extra clarity that they have provided. I would like to place on record my thanks for their engagement with me on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition. Of course, we will continue to work constructively in the national interest wherever we can.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I did love the intervention and the response, which was like something from “Love Actually”. [Laughter.] Well, it is Christmas.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
It is a genuine pleasure to close a Second Reading debate in which there has been such consensus, and concise consensus at that. At times, as we have seen, that consensus has lapsed into adoration.
Alex Burghart
One day, maybe—who knows?
As several hon. Members pointed out, the Bill is a necessary short piece of legislation that brings resilience to our constitutional arrangements and does so at speed. It was necessary that we brought a short Bill before Parliament to get the measures through quickly. The reason for that is, as we all know, His Majesty will soon start to travel in the fulfilment of his duties to the country, so we wanted to have things in place as quickly as possible. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) for recognising that and paying tribute to the two new Counsellors of State whom we are appointing today and to how respected they already are. She is right to point to the Regency Act and the fact that the royal household has confirmed that Counsellors of State will only be working royals.
I also pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis). Little can be added to his speech, because there is little that anyone can teach him about the workings of our constitution. He was an illustrious member of the Front-Bench team and an extremely well informed Minister in the Cabinet Office. I know that some of his expertise was brought to bear in the design and drafting of the legislation, and I am grateful to him for that.
I also thank the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara), who spoke from the SNP Front Bench. He raised a point about the order of precedence. Obviously, the law of succession was changed a few years ago to enable girls born to the sovereign to inherit, but that did not change the existing order of succession. That is why the Princess Royal and the Earl of Wessex feature in the order in which they do. In addition, I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) for his remarks and concur with what he said.
I am delighted that we have heard in the debate how the Bill commands considerable support in the House, as it did in the other place. I know that this Parliament will wish to be of assistance and support to our sovereign as he goes about his duties.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).
Counsellors of State Bill [Lords]
Thursday 1st December 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Counsellors of State Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 66-I Marshalled list for Committee - (21 Nov 2022)
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 2 stand part.
Alex Burghart
The clause provides that His Royal Highness the Earl of Wessex and Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal can be delegated royal functions as Counsellors of State during his or her lifetime respectively. Subsection (2) provides that Their Royal Highnesses are subject to the proviso and disqualification from acting as a Counsellor of State as set out in the 1937 Act.
Clause 2 establishes the short title and provides that the Bill will come into force on the day after it receives Royal Assent.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill reported, without amendment.
Third Reading
Alex Burghart
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
These are slightly unusual proceedings; the House is not accustomed to such agreement. It has been an honour to be part of these rare proceedings—and rare they are, as our House has not had to debate such matters for nearly 70 years, since 1953. It is therefore right that I take a few moments to thank all of those who have been responsible for drawing up such important legislation so quickly. I thank particularly our excellent officials in the Cabinet Office, who in many ways are the guardians of the constitution, and the Cabinet Secretary for his particular knowledge of these matters. I also thank the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), his Majesty’s loyal Opposition and the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) from the SNP Front Bench for their genuinely constructive and supportive position on these matters.
It is perhaps fitting that we are touching lightly on these matters this year, in which we have been reminded of how the monarchy remains a fundamental part of our living and breathing constitution, as it has been since the formation of our kingdom in the 10th century. It also remains an enormous asset to our country and an intrinsic part of who we are. I am delighted that the Bill has commanded such clear support and commend it to the House. God save the King.
Angela Rayner
I follow the Parliamentary Secretary in thanking those who have spoken in the debates on this Bill, both in this House and in the other place, especially my noble Friend Baroness Smith of Basildon, who spoke for the Opposition. Thanks are also due to all those who have worked on the legislation before us during its passage through the House. I join the Minister in thanking his officials, and so many others.
As the Minister said, Bills do not often go through the House like this. It is testament not only to the affection that the British people and this House feel in recognition of all the royals do for us, but to how we are able to work with our officials to get things through speedily. If anybody wants to study what happens in this House, this would be a really nice way of looking at how Bills go through Parliament—it would be a shorter lesson than some of the other Bills that many hon. Members have been through.
As we know, the passage of legislation through this House is not always simple—and very often, we would say that that is quite right—but I hope we have shown today that where there is consensual and necessary legislation that we need to bring forward, we can act quickly and responsibly. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and God save the King.
Brendan O'Hara
I add my voice to those who have thanked everyone who was involved in bringing this Bill quickly and speedily to the Floor of the House, and to everyone who helped get it passed with such unanimity and good humour. On the subject of good humour, I have a quick history lesson for the Minister: the kingdom that he referred to as beginning in the 10th century actually began in 1603 with the Union of Crowns, when the King of Scots took the throne of the United Kingdom. That is just a brief history lesson for everyone.
Mr Deputy Speaker
We have all learned something today; we have also learned how speedily legislation can go through the House when everybody is agreed. It has been my honour and privilege to have been in the Chair through all those stages.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.
Royal Assent
Tuesday 6th December 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 26 October 2022 - (26 Oct 2022)