Asked by: Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the decision to reduce the size of the Accession Council and to hold an annual ballot of Privy Councillors only applies to the next meeting of the Accession Council or whether annual ballots will continue thereafter.
Answered by Lord True - Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal
The decision not to summons all Privy Counsellors to the next Accession Council, and to hold a ballot of Privy Counsellors not eligible to attend on an ex officio basis, was taken with the collective agreement of the Lord President of the Council and Number 10. The Royal Household was also consulted on the basis of this collective advice. This decision-making process is consistent with the decision-making process for previous Accession Councils.
The decision to reduce the size of the Accession Council and to hold a ballot for those ineligible to attend on an ex officio basis applies to all Privy Councillors, regardless of their nationality or their usual place of residence.
St. James’s Palace is the senior Royal Palace in the United Kingdom and the Court of St. James is the Royal Court to which all Realm High Commissioners are accredited. St. James’s Palace has therefore long been agreed to be the most appropriate setting for the Accession Council.
In any case, Westminster Hall will not be available to host the Accession Council because an intensive and time critical series of works will begin on the Parliamentary estate, including Westminster Hall, as soon as Demise is announced. The purpose of these works is to prepare the estate and surrounding areas for significant elements of ceremonial and procedural activity. Hosting the Accession Council in Westminster Hall would prevent the completion of these critical works, resulting in significant disruption to other national activity.
Attendance at an Accession Council is not a statutory matter and there is no constitutional requirement to consult Privy Counsellors on any amendments to attendance arrangements.
Decisions on attendance arrangements for future Accession Councils will be taken at the appropriate time.
Asked by: Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what consultations were undertaken by the Privy Council with Privy Councillors prior to the decision to reduce the size of the Accession Council.
Answered by Lord True - Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal
The decision not to summons all Privy Counsellors to the next Accession Council, and to hold a ballot of Privy Counsellors not eligible to attend on an ex officio basis, was taken with the collective agreement of the Lord President of the Council and Number 10. The Royal Household was also consulted on the basis of this collective advice. This decision-making process is consistent with the decision-making process for previous Accession Councils.
The decision to reduce the size of the Accession Council and to hold a ballot for those ineligible to attend on an ex officio basis applies to all Privy Councillors, regardless of their nationality or their usual place of residence.
St. James’s Palace is the senior Royal Palace in the United Kingdom and the Court of St. James is the Royal Court to which all Realm High Commissioners are accredited. St. James’s Palace has therefore long been agreed to be the most appropriate setting for the Accession Council.
In any case, Westminster Hall will not be available to host the Accession Council because an intensive and time critical series of works will begin on the Parliamentary estate, including Westminster Hall, as soon as Demise is announced. The purpose of these works is to prepare the estate and surrounding areas for significant elements of ceremonial and procedural activity. Hosting the Accession Council in Westminster Hall would prevent the completion of these critical works, resulting in significant disruption to other national activity.
Attendance at an Accession Council is not a statutory matter and there is no constitutional requirement to consult Privy Counsellors on any amendments to attendance arrangements.
Decisions on attendance arrangements for future Accession Councils will be taken at the appropriate time.
Asked by: Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Accession Council on the death of the Sovereign could be held in Westminster Hall; and if not, why not.
Answered by Lord True - Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal
The decision not to summons all Privy Counsellors to the next Accession Council, and to hold a ballot of Privy Counsellors not eligible to attend on an ex officio basis, was taken with the collective agreement of the Lord President of the Council and Number 10. The Royal Household was also consulted on the basis of this collective advice. This decision-making process is consistent with the decision-making process for previous Accession Councils.
The decision to reduce the size of the Accession Council and to hold a ballot for those ineligible to attend on an ex officio basis applies to all Privy Councillors, regardless of their nationality or their usual place of residence.
St. James’s Palace is the senior Royal Palace in the United Kingdom and the Court of St. James is the Royal Court to which all Realm High Commissioners are accredited. St. James’s Palace has therefore long been agreed to be the most appropriate setting for the Accession Council.
In any case, Westminster Hall will not be available to host the Accession Council because an intensive and time critical series of works will begin on the Parliamentary estate, including Westminster Hall, as soon as Demise is announced. The purpose of these works is to prepare the estate and surrounding areas for significant elements of ceremonial and procedural activity. Hosting the Accession Council in Westminster Hall would prevent the completion of these critical works, resulting in significant disruption to other national activity.
Attendance at an Accession Council is not a statutory matter and there is no constitutional requirement to consult Privy Counsellors on any amendments to attendance arrangements.
Decisions on attendance arrangements for future Accession Councils will be taken at the appropriate time.
Asked by: Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the decision to reduce the size of the Accession Council and to hold a ballot also applies to Privy Councillors from (1) Commonwealth, or (2) other countries.
Answered by Lord True - Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal
The decision not to summons all Privy Counsellors to the next Accession Council, and to hold a ballot of Privy Counsellors not eligible to attend on an ex officio basis, was taken with the collective agreement of the Lord President of the Council and Number 10. The Royal Household was also consulted on the basis of this collective advice. This decision-making process is consistent with the decision-making process for previous Accession Councils.
The decision to reduce the size of the Accession Council and to hold a ballot for those ineligible to attend on an ex officio basis applies to all Privy Councillors, regardless of their nationality or their usual place of residence.
St. James’s Palace is the senior Royal Palace in the United Kingdom and the Court of St. James is the Royal Court to which all Realm High Commissioners are accredited. St. James’s Palace has therefore long been agreed to be the most appropriate setting for the Accession Council.
In any case, Westminster Hall will not be available to host the Accession Council because an intensive and time critical series of works will begin on the Parliamentary estate, including Westminster Hall, as soon as Demise is announced. The purpose of these works is to prepare the estate and surrounding areas for significant elements of ceremonial and procedural activity. Hosting the Accession Council in Westminster Hall would prevent the completion of these critical works, resulting in significant disruption to other national activity.
Attendance at an Accession Council is not a statutory matter and there is no constitutional requirement to consult Privy Counsellors on any amendments to attendance arrangements.
Decisions on attendance arrangements for future Accession Councils will be taken at the appropriate time.
Asked by: Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government which minister made the decision (1) to reduce the size of the Accession Council, and (2) to hold a ballot of Privy Councillors to attend the Council.
Answered by Lord True - Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal
The decision not to summons all Privy Counsellors to the next Accession Council, and to hold a ballot of Privy Counsellors not eligible to attend on an ex officio basis, was taken with the collective agreement of the Lord President of the Council and Number 10. The Royal Household was also consulted on the basis of this collective advice. This decision-making process is consistent with the decision-making process for previous Accession Councils.
The decision to reduce the size of the Accession Council and to hold a ballot for those ineligible to attend on an ex officio basis applies to all Privy Councillors, regardless of their nationality or their usual place of residence.
St. James’s Palace is the senior Royal Palace in the United Kingdom and the Court of St. James is the Royal Court to which all Realm High Commissioners are accredited. St. James’s Palace has therefore long been agreed to be the most appropriate setting for the Accession Council.
In any case, Westminster Hall will not be available to host the Accession Council because an intensive and time critical series of works will begin on the Parliamentary estate, including Westminster Hall, as soon as Demise is announced. The purpose of these works is to prepare the estate and surrounding areas for significant elements of ceremonial and procedural activity. Hosting the Accession Council in Westminster Hall would prevent the completion of these critical works, resulting in significant disruption to other national activity.
Attendance at an Accession Council is not a statutory matter and there is no constitutional requirement to consult Privy Counsellors on any amendments to attendance arrangements.
Decisions on attendance arrangements for future Accession Councils will be taken at the appropriate time.
Asked by: Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Cabinet Secretary has issued any new guidelines to Special Advisers in 10 Downing Street relating to their role during the period in which the new leader of the Conservative Party is being elected.
Answered by Lord True - Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal
The Civil Service should act as it did during previous periods in 2016 and 2019. Official resources must not be used to support leadership campaign activity.
As at all times, the Civil Service must serve the Government in a way which maintains political impartiality and retains the confidence of Ministers, while at the same time ensuring it will be able to establish the same relationship with those who may go on to lead the Government.
Special advisers are exempt from the Civil Service Code requirement of political impartiality. Therefore, as laid out in the Special Adviser Code of Conduct, their involvement in political activity does not need to be restricted in the same way as it is for other civil servants. All Special Advisers have been made aware of the expectations regarding their role and conduct during this period. If they wish to take part in leadership campaign activity, they must do so in their own time, out of office hours or via unpaid leave, and not involve the use of departmental resources.
Asked by: Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what discussions, if any, they have had with Mr Nigel Boardman about the request of representatives of the late Lord Heywood to make representations to the review of Supply Chain Finance during the process of that review.
Answered by Lord True - Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal
I refer the Noble Lord to my written statement of 22 July 2021. As the written statement notes, where actions have been attributed to individuals, some of which could be read as critical, the individuals concerned or their personal representative, where applicable, were given the opportunity ahead of the report being finalised to make representations on those sections of the report that could be perceived as criticisms to correct factual inaccuracies.
Lady Heywood has had access to papers that Lord Heywood would have been shown and, representing her late husband, has been treated on equivalent terms to others involved in the review.
During the course of the Review, Lady Heywood made representations to Mr Boardman about the process. Mr Boardman listened to these representations and agreed to undertake additional engagement with Lady Heywood prior to finalising his report.
Asked by: Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they have taken to ensure the independence of Mr Nigel Boardman who is conducting their review of the use of Supply Chain Finance.
Answered by Lord True - Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal
I refer the Noble Lord to my written statement of 22 July 2021.
Nigel Boardman is a distinguished legal expert, having undertaken a number of reviews scrutinising the Government. He was asked to lead this review following the appropriate consideration of relevant interests.
Asked by: Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the reply by Lord True on 4 May (HL Deb, col 373), what plans they have to name those responsible for speaking to the Sunday Times about plans to reform the House, as set out in the report in the Sunday Times Lords too old to sit - 'so they should stand down', published on 4 May. [T]
Answered by Lord True - Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal
As both the Leader and I said in this House last week, this is not Government policy.
The Conservative manifesto committed to looking at the role of the Lords, but any reform needs careful consideration, not to be brought forward piecemeal.