Counsellors of State Bill [HL]

Lord Sentamu Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 23rd November 2022 Lords Chamber

[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.