House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 9th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made a very eloquent speech, but I am puzzled by it. He did not dispute the merits of what is proposed in this amendment or the mischief that it is addressing; his point appeared to be that nothing will be done by government until there is fundamental reform of this House. But we all know that that will not occur—at the very least, not for a very long time. Because of that, over recent years this House has regularly addressed specific mischiefs and improved them. This is another one, and we should act on it.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest: for five years, I was an unpaid Lords Minister and Whip in the coalition Government. When we have a coalition Government—we may very well find ourselves with a rather messy coalition after the next election—there may be an argument for having a larger number of Ministers, because we have to spend some of our time marking each other, so to speak.

My responsibilities were in the Foreign Office and the Cabinet Office, and I did indeed spend quite a lot of time outside the country. That enabled the Foreign Office to send someone to a number of countries that would otherwise have been entirely neglected without the most junior Minister, as it were, being sent there. I was lucky enough—and still am—to have an academic pension and a wife who has an academic pension, which means that we are moderately comfortably off. Maybe if we were of the Conservative variety, we would find that we needed more to live on, but one can manage not too badly on an academic pension. I did not mind missing some of the days in the House.

We have heard a number of interesting speeches, which have ranged very widely, including on the relationship between the two Houses. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that I am reading a book on the House of Lords in the 17th and early 18th centuries, when we had conferences between the two Houses; maybe he would like to suggest that we move back towards that. Here we are on Report for a Bill that has been deliberately designed to be as narrow as possible, but we are talking about the relationship between the two Houses, the way in which government is structured and how many Ministers we need.

The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is absolutely correct that keeping the Back-Benchers in order has led to an expansion of government patronage. He did not make as much about the expansion of PPSs in the House, as well as trade envoys, which has meant that the House of Commons has ceased, in effect, to do a lot of its scrutiny job. Indeed, some weeks ago I met a Labour MP, elected last year, and she said that she wondered what the purpose of an MP is in the House of Commons now, as they are not expected to change legislation or to get at the mistakes that their own Government are making. There are some very broad issues here, but those issues are broader than this Bill.

We all know what the impact of this amendment, if passed, would be: the House of Lords would have fewer Ministers. That would damage this House very considerably, because the current Government are highly unlikely to shrink the number of Ministers in the Commons. If we want to shrink the number of Ministers, we should be agitating, but, of course, part of what has happened is that as local government has got weaker and central government has taken on more of what used to the role of local democracy, Ministers have expanded in all the things they do.

So, from these Benches, we will not support the amendment. Yes, we do favour much wider parliamentary reform. Yes, we favour much more thoroughgoing reform of this House. Yes, we are immensely disappointed at the timidity of this Government, with respect to this Bill as in so many other areas. But here we are, with a Bill that is concerned with a small change in the nature of this House, and unable to persuade the Government, without a much longer conversation, to change the 1975 Act, to change the way the Commons operates and, in that case, those of us on these Benches will vote against the amendment if a Division is called.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment. I suggest, in addition to the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, that the position is even worse. We are not relying on the Clerk of the Parliaments; the Government are relying on legal advice which has been received that none of us have seen. I cannot understand, on a matter of this importance which goes to the integrity of the House, why we are denied access to legal advice which, as I understand it, the Government are relying on in order to respond to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Ashton. This is a matter on which certainty is essential and I, for my part, without seeing this legal advice, cannot accept that the best solution is not to put the matter, with clarity, in legislation.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, I join with others to support the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Ashton. The constitutional role of this House is to review and improve legislation, and this is a clear case of improving legislation. I make only two points. First, to repeat the observation made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, we have never seen the second set of legal advice that has now been provided by the Government Legal Department. There is absolutely no convincing reason why confidentially should not be waived in respect of that legal advice. It is impossible for us to make any judgment without that happening. It is equally clear that there remains real doubt as to the advice received. The Clerk of the Parliaments has talked about being willing to take a risk. There is only a risk where there is uncertainty.

The second point I wish to underline is that mental incapacity does not necessarily proceed in a linear fashion. I take the simple example of George III: periods of pronounced mental incapacity may be followed by clear and lengthy periods of lucidity. Indeed, in the case of George III that led to constitutional problems, because when lucid he went on to question some of the steps taken in the regency. Here, you also have the case of someone who suffers a massive nervous breakdown and fully recovers, only to discover that they have been resigned from this House—an irretrievable step. They cannot go back, so what do they do? They seek to challenge and review the decision on the grounds that it was unlawful, and they may well succeed.

What happens if, after one or two years in court, it is determined that that person was entitled to continue as a Member of this House, and they then say, “Well, I would have acted in the following way with regard to primary or secondary legislation that passed through this House during the period when I was unlawfully prevented from contributing to proceedings”? It seems to me that it just leads to a constitutional problem, one that is simply resolved by a very straightforward amendment to the 2014 Act.

--- Later in debate ---

It is really the challenge set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell: can we find a way forward that we all agree on? We are trying to get to the same point. I hope that we can.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

The noble Baroness has been extremely helpful. In the period before Third Reading, if the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, agrees with that approach, would she be prepared, at the very least, to share with the House, or with those who are interested in this issue, the substance of the legal advice, so that we can understand what the issues and uncertainties may be?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I think the best way forward would be for the government lawyers to talk with lawyers in the House with an interest, including the noble Lord, so that we can find a way forward. It is in the interests of the House to resolve this and for lawyers to talk to lawyers. I am not a lawyer and I have no intention of becoming a lawyer, although the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, once accused me of being a lawyer —I say that with some pride—but I think we are all in the same place and want to find a way forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gove (Con)]

My Lords, I hesitate to rise in this debate and was not intending to, but since no other Member of this House has spoken in opposition to the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, I shall do so very briefly.

I hesitate to do so because when I was Education Secretary, I introduced legislation to deal with persistent absentees, and therefore it might be thought that I was in sympathy with the intent behind this amendment. But one of the reasons why I am very cautious about seeing this amendment go further is this. It is based on a false premise that we hear often, which is that this House has too many Members and new schemes must be found somehow to identify those who should be expunged or removed at any point. If we look at the Division lists in the votes that we have just had, the numbers are lower than one would expect in some of the Divisions in the other place. The suggestion that there are too many Members can often be a means of trying to get rid of those Members whom the Executive or others, for whatever reason, ideologically or otherwise, find inconvenient—a stone in the shoe. We in this House should not be seeking to reduce the range of voices, to limit the number of Members or indeed, potentially, to forfeit expertise.

That takes me to my second point. Many of those Members of this House who will not be here for 10%, 11% or 12% of the time—or whatever arbitrary percentage figure we choose—will be people of eminence who will be occupied outside in deploying their expertise for the public good or who will have achieved eminence in a particular role. They may be, for example, former Prime Ministers. Would it be right if we found that, for example, Theresa May—the noble Baroness, Lady May —had attended this House for only 8% or 9% of Sittings in a given year and should somehow be expelled? That would be an outrage, but that is what would happen if we followed this arbitrary proposal.

That takes me to my third point. I know that this amendment comes from a place of courtesy and consideration and that the Cross Benches are anxious to ensure that this House can accommodate the request for reform that comes from the other place and from outside. That is why I am so cautious in pushing back. But, rather than seeking to bend the operation of our House to those who are not in sympathy with it, we should seek to ensure that it operates effectively in challenging faulty legislation and in making sure that expertise is deployed—not in attempting to regulate our numbers but in attempting to regulate the flow of legislation that comes from the other place which is faulty and which benefits from the expertise here. If we lose a single voice that is expert and authoritative in challenging that Executive, we undermine the case for this place. That is why, with the greatest respect, I oppose this amendment.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, we undermine respect for this House if we continue to have people who do not turn up more than once in each Session. The answer to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Gove, about previous Prime Ministers is that the rule is not absolute, because Section 2(3)(b) of the legislation being amended provides that the House may resolve that the period of attendance should not apply to the particular Peer

“by reason of special circumstances”,

so there is already a statutory provision that allows for exceptions.

My other point in answer to the noble Lord is that we have already accepted the principle. Section 2(1) requires that each Peer must attend at least once during a Session, so we have accepted that people who do not comply with the timing position must go. The only question is whether that is a realistic limit. I entirely agree with the convenor that a once-in-a-Session provision is not an appropriate rule. A much more appropriate rule is to require people to be here 10% of the time.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I strongly support the principle behind this amendment. We have debated the concept at some length and, in my view, it is essential that we now move to a position where there is a rule that means that people who play no part after a period cease to be Members of your Lordships’ House. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, talked about persuading non-attendees to retire, and I too have done that. One case is seared in my memory: I went to see a member of the Liberal Democrat group with my Chief Whip to try and explain to him that he had done absolutely nothing for a considerable number of years and it might be appropriate for him to retire. He was extremely sweet; he smiled and said, “I never thought of that. Could you give me a bit of time to think about it?”. Years later, he still had not thought about it. So I am absolutely certain that we need to move.

As for the objections of the noble Lord, Lord Gove, the people we are talking about are not the stone in the shoe; they are never in the shoe. When they are in the shoe, they are normally sand at best, because they do not do anything. The idea that we would lose voices of any consequence by saying that people had to be here rather more than they are at the moment is just wrong, I am afraid, as far as legislation is concerned. In my experience, the number of people who normally are not here and suddenly turn up to play a full part in a Bill is immeasurably small.

My only problem with the amendment, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, knows and as I have said before, is that this issue should be considered first by a Select Committee, for a number of reasons that have been given—10% may be the right answer, but it is worth thinking about that. The other thing that has been put to me—it will be contentious, but at least we ought to think about it—is whether the requirement applies retrospectively. Some people have said that, unless it applies retrospectively, we will get flooded with people who have never been here before. There are arguments for and against it, but we need to discuss that; we have not done so at all.

So, for those reasons, while I absolutely support the principle, if the noble Earl were to press this amendment to a Division, I do not think we would be able to support him in the Lobby.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, I want briefly to express some concerns about this amendment. Despite the eloquence of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, who in the end have advanced a very good argument, the concerns are threefold.

First, if we accepted this amendment, we would entrench numbers. If we want to get this House down to around 600, entrenching the numbers at around 830 would make the task more difficult. Secondly and differently, we have to ask what the perception of the public will be; they will say that this is a self-serving amendment, in that we are looking after our friends, and that in the absence of any other measures we are not serious about proper reform. That takes me to my final point. I will support this amendment, but on the basis that my party is committed to serious, robust reform and will play a full part in any negotiations that take place so that we have a properly reformed House with participation requirements, a fit and proper test, an enhanced HOLAC, maybe term peerages and a retirement age. I want to see a fundamentally reformed House and will support this amendment on the basis that there will be substantial support from my Benches for that.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the issue before the House is not the merits of the hereditary Peers or the contribution they make, about which there can be no doubt. The issue is very simple: is it really acceptable in 2025 that, for decades to come, a House of the legislature should continue to consist of a large number of people who are here purely because of who their ancestors were? For me, that is unacceptable.

[Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment from my noble friend Lord Parkinson. “Peer” comes from the Latin word par, which means “equal”, and in this House, wherever we sit, we are all equal. We have a shared experience; we are here with a common purpose to scrutinise legislation and serve our country. There may be Peers with whom we disagree or Peers whom we admire, but in the brief time that I have been in this House, I have understood one thing: we are all in this together. Both hereditary and lifetime appointments form a constituent part of the legislative process within the framework of the constitution of the United Kingdom. To abolish the hereditary element is an attack on our constitution, but this has already happened, so I accept reluctantly that there should be no further elections for hereditary Peers.

What I find hard to accept is the spiteful ejection of the existing hard-working hereditary Peers, who across this House bring so much energy and expertise. The unique composition of the House of Lords does not seem rational, but it really works, as Ian Dunt wrote in his book How Westminster Works … and Why It Doesn’t. He is a man of the left, and this was not what he thought he would discover when he began working on this book. But that was his conclusion: this is the one element in our system that works.

The hereditary colleagues in the last Parliament had overall a better attendance record than life Peers, and over half of them serve as members of Select Committees. I declare an interest as my father was a hereditary who was booted out in 1999. He was a retired general who brought all his military experience to the Defence Committee. One of the things I have noticed is that our hereditary colleagues have a greater humility—and perhaps, if I may put it this way, noblesse oblige—than those of us who think we have been placed here because of our wonderful achievements. I really believe that the removal of our colleagues will leave our House worse off, rather than better, and surely the principle of any reform should be improvement, not diminishment.

Conflict in the Middle East

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating a very sensitive Statement. I was in Jerusalem last week, speaking at a legal seminar at the Hebrew University, and I was very fortunate to fly out on Thursday night, hours before airspace was closed, otherwise I would be one of the terrified British citizens mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. I can tell the Minister that it was clear from my conversations with many Israelis, including those highly critical of the Netanyahu Government, that they are deeply concerned. They find it intolerable that Iran should be allowed to continue to progress towards the production of nuclear weapons, given that Iran has made it very clear that it will use such weapons to seek to annihilate Israel, given that Iran is in breach of the requirements of the International Atomic Energy Agency, as we saw last week, and given all the other steps taken by Iran to promote terrorism over the past few years.

I understand that the Government wish to see de-escalation, but I have two questions. How can Israel and the world be assured that any promises now made by Iran will be respected? Secondly, I repeat the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, to which I do not think the Minister responded. In the meantime, will the Government take the practical step of helping Israel to defend its citizens, both Arab and Jewish, by our military assisting in shooting down missiles which are aimed at the civilian population in Israel, a step which the Government have rightly taken in the past?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I say to the noble Lord that our focus is not to shift away from what Iran is doing. We are absolutely clear. We supported President Trump’s initial statements in terms of dialogue. President Trump has focused, this time around, on ensuring that Iran complies with the commitments it has given in the past, particularly in relation to the JCPOA. I have already mentioned the fact that there are facilities in terms of the snapback that is still available at the United Nations.

We want to keep absolutely focused on de-escalation to avoid this conflict having a wider implication that is extremely dangerous, so we are urging both sides to step back so that President Trump can be absolutely focused on delivering that dialogue to ensure that they comply with those international obligations. The noble Lord asked me about how we can ensure that they will keep their word. The only way we can ensure that is by using the mechanisms that are available to us at the moment. One thing is clear: military action will not stop this. It will not resolve the long-term situation over nuclear development. It is only through the proper scrutiny that we have had in place before, and the appropriate sanctions that might be available if they fail to comply, that we can ensure long-term security.

Gaza: Ceasefire

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

We will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, next and then from my noble friend Lord Grocott.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the tragedy of Gaza is going to continue until Hamas is removed from power? Can he explain what he wants to say on this subject to Ayelet Epstein, who is watching these proceedings and whose son Netta was murdered by Hamas on 7 October when he successfully shielded his fiancée from a grenade?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

As I have repeatedly said to the noble Lord in this Chamber, we are committed to building a future where the Palestinian Authority is the authority for all Occupied Territories and it is defended and protected to do its job. There is no role for Hamas in the future of Gaza.

Gaza

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Obviously, the situation is incredibly complex, but if there is one thing that I think will be key to finding a solution, it is the normalisation of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia. That is key, and there must be a Palestinian component in that. We will press to achieve that, and we will work alongside US President Trump and his team in the coming weeks to bring it about. Our long-standing position has been that we will recognise a Palestinian state at the time that is most conducive to that peace process, but we are certain that if we can ensure that that normalisation between the Saudis and Israel takes place, we can progress rapidly.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, will the Palestinian component, as the Minister describes it, exclude Hamas?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I think the noble Lord knows that I have made it clear, as I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that we are working with the Palestinian Authority; we are supporting the Palestinian Authority, and there is no place for Hamas in the governance of Gaza.

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I reassure the noble Baroness that we see the ceasefire as the first step in ensuring long-term peace and security for Israelis, Palestinians and the wider region, bringing much-needed stability. We thank Qatar, Egypt and the US for their tireless efforts over the past 15 months in getting us to this moment.

I reiterate our very clear policy: we would oppose any effort to move Palestinians in Gaza to neighbouring Arab states against their will. As we have repeatedly said, Palestinian civilians, including those evacuated from northern Gaza, must be permitted to return to their communities and rebuild. As the Prime Minister has said, we should be with them as they rebuild on the way to a two-state solution. That is the way to ensure peace and security for both Israel and the Palestinians.

In terms of recognition, the Foreign Secretary has made this clear on numerous occasions. We see that as one of the tools for seeking and establishing that two-state solution. We want to be able to use it as strong leverage to maintain that course for a two-state solution, so that when the time is right, we are committed to recognise.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, in the light of Hamas’s abhorrent policy of torturing hostages, what action is being taken by His Majesty’s Government, together with our allies, to prevent Hamas from continuing to occupy any position of power and authority in Gaza? Does the Minister accept that the two-state solution, which he mentioned and which I and many others support, is not going to happen until Hamas is removed from power and authority?

Military Interventions Overseas

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Thursday 25th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

That matter was alluded to yesterday. I said we would reflect on these matters in the usual channels. There was a debate on the Red Sea situation in the other place. I pointed out yesterday that we have a debate tomorrow in your Lordships’ House on Ukraine, on which there has not been a debate recently in the other place. The Government will continue actively to consider the best ways of keeping both Houses informed and involved in these situations.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Following the actions of the Houthis in pursuance of their slogan, “Death to America, death to Israel and a curse on the Jews”, and given the recent protest in this country in support of that appalling organisation, is it not high time for the Government to bring before Parliament a Motion to proscribe the organisation as a terrorist group?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, we are sanctioning members of the Houthi organisation. I totally agree with his characterisation of the nature of that organisation, and I assure him that all these matters will continue to be kept under careful and constant review.

Israel and Gaza

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Monday 23rd October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the Statement and the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, rightly emphasise the plight of the hostages, more than 200 of them, including children, the disabled and the elderly, the taking of whom is a despicable crime. The International Committee of the Red Cross has said that it is in

“sustained, daily contact with Hamas”.

Will the Government urge the Red Cross to demand access to the hostages and to do everything it can to ensure their welfare, pending what we hope will be their return home?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, we are making every diplomatic effort to secure that. Obviously, one is constrained by the environment in which everybody is operating and the people who have authority in that area. The United Kingdom Government certainly wish to see all hostages returned, and they should be returned forthwith. We hear that four have been released and that is very welcome, but these are human beings, not bargaining chips to be played with by terrorists to command media attention.

I focus on British nationals: we have to remember that not only were 10 British nationals, tragically, killed in the Hamas attacks but a further six British nationals are missing, some of whom are feared to be among the dead or kidnapped. Unfortunately, the reality of this situation is that the details of the effects of that monstrous attack are still only becoming clear, but we are working with Israel to establish the facts. We are keeping in close contact with other nations—and agencies, to respond to the noble Lord—to try to find a route to get the hostages released. The reality is that if Hamas had a single ounce of humanity, it would release all the hostages immediately but, sadly, they have already shown the type of people who they are.

Israel and Gaza

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Monday 16th October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the British Government will bend all their efforts not only to securing the release and safety of British people who are missing but to supporting all those who have been kidnapped, taken and oppressed in the way that my noble friend describes. We are talking to a range of organisations and nations—sovereign states and others—which may have capacity to bring to bear on the Hamas leadership. Whether that will soften the hearts of some of the people who ordered this atrocity I hesitate to forecast. However, I promise my noble friend that the British Government will pursue the action that he refers to.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I very much welcome the Statement and the eloquent comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Newby. This is personal for me. My wife is Israeli. We have a home in Israel. We have friends with family members who were murdered by Hamas nine days ago. The Statement mentioned international law. Do the Government agree that the obligation of Israel to respond in a proportionate manner depends in very large part on the severity of the threat which it faces?

Do the Government further agree that there can be no doubt that the threat is very grave indeed, since Hamas aims not to negotiate a peace treaty or to secure a two-state solution but to destroy Israel? It has the military capacity to send thousands of missiles and we have seen that it has the ability and the willingness, astonishingly, to enter Israel to torture, murder and abduct its citizens simply because they are Jewish. Hamas does not care whether they are supporters of the Netanyahu Government or of a peace settlement. They do not care whether they are religious or secular, whether they are babies or elderly ladies. Do the Government agree that there is no country in the world that would tolerate such a threat on its borders and that therefore a military response is the only available response to the threat posed by Hamas?

Finally, do the Government agree that international law does not prohibit military action which, sadly and regrettably, will lead to civilian deaths, especially when Hamas hides behind the civilian population? Does the Minister agree that the essential difference between Hamas and Israel is that Hamas aims to kill civilians—Jews—while Israel does all that it can to avoid civilian deaths?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments. I offer my sympathy and concern to his friends and family.

This is an unprecedented situation. The UK stands side by side with Israel in fighting terror. We agree that Hamas must never again be able to perpetrate atrocities against the Israeli people of the kind that the noble Lord has so eloquently referred to. The UK has a strong track record of supporting international law. That remains our position. We call on our friends and partners to do the same. Israel has stated that it will operate within international law. As the noble Lord said, every country is allowed to defend itself. It is not for the UK to define their approach. Israel suffered an appalling terrorist attack. It has a right to respond and defend itself.

Counsellors of State Bill [HL]

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 23rd November 2022 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.