Asked by: Lord Dodds of Duncairn (Democratic Unionist Party - Life peer)
Question to the Northern Ireland Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many times the royal prerogatives of mercy has been exercised in Northern Ireland in each of the past five years.
Answered by Lord Caine - Shadow Minister (Northern Ireland)
The Royal Prerogative of Mercy has not been exercised in Northern Ireland within the past five years.
Asked by: Lord James of Blackheath (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether the Coronation Oath to be sworn by His Majesty King Charles III will require him to use his power to cause law and justice in mercy to be executed in all his judgments.
Answered by Baroness Neville-Rolfe - Shadow Minister (Treasury)
The Coronation Oath Act 1688 requires that the Sovereign take the oath at his or her Coronation, and the text of the oath is set out in the Act. The precise form of words has been varied over successive coronations to reflect changes to the constitutional position. Except for one instance, the changes to the oath have been made without primary legislation - see the statement [1] of Sir Winston Churchill to the House of Commons in February 1953 (HC Deb 25 February 1953 vol 511 cc2091-3).
The text of the Oath will be published in due course and Parliament will be updated on any changes to the wording.
[1] CORONATION OATH CHANGES HC Deb 25 February 1953 vol 511 cc2091-32091
§The Prime MinisterI should now like to make my statement in reply to Question No. 45.
The terms of the Coronation Oath were first prescribed by the Act 1 William and Mary, chapter 6. Since then its terms have been changed at least five times. On one occasion only has the change had legislative sanction, namely the change which was introduced as a result of the Act of Union with Scotland. The Treaty of Union had provided that in Scotland the religion professed by the people of Scotland should be preserved to them and confirmed by every King on his accession, and it was thought proper that similar provision should be made for the protection of the English Church in England. The Coronation Oath was altered and enlarged accordingly.
For the many subsequent changes, large or small, which have been made in the terms of the Oath there was no legislative sanction. They were made at various times, and, in particular, after the Act of Union with Ireland, after the Disestablishment of the Irish Church, and also after the passing of the Statute of Westminster. On the last occasion the question whether the changes that were necessary to meet the new constitutional position could be made without an Act of Parliament was carefully considered. and the Lord Chancellor and the Law Officers of the day advised that they could.
I am advised by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor that this opinion was clearly correct, and that the changes now proposed, which are, perhaps, less substantial than those made in 1937, but are required to meet the new constitutional position created by the Indian Independence Act, 1947, and other statutes, can also be made without legislative sanction.
Her Majesty's Government propose to follow this long line of precedents. To accept the view that changes in the terms of the Oath which are necessary to reconcile it with a changed constitutional 2092position cannot be made except with the authority of an Act of Parliament would be to cast doubt upon the validity of the Oath administered to every Sovereign of this country since George I.
If, as I am advised, the Coronation Oath can be lawfully administered in the terms now proposed, no useful purpose would be served by legislation. It must be remembered that at Westminster the Queen will be crowned Queen not only of the United Kingdom, but also of other self-governing countries of the Commonwealth. The form of Oath now proposed has been put to each of these countries and none has raised any objection, or has suggested that it is necessary to pass legislation in its own Parliament or in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Indeed, it would not be possible in the time now remaining before the Coronation to arrange for legislation to be passed by the Commonwealth countries concerned.
§Mr. AttleeMay I say, having had some experience of these difficulties, that I think it is extremely satisfactory that agreement has been obtained throughout the Commonwealth on this Oath, and that we should be well advised to allow this to proceed without legislation?
§Mr. E. FletcherMay 1, with respect. put this to the Prime Minister? While no one would wish to throw doubt on the validity of the Coronation Oaths in the past, in view of the fact that the Coronation Oath is a Parliamentary creation, and is intended as a limitation on the Prerogative, is it not desirable, though it may be inconvenient, that any changes that are proposed this year should have legislative sanction, for which, I am sure, there would be no difficulty in making the appropriate arrangements on a non-controversial basis? It is a matter which affects the rights of Parliament, and not merely the rights of the Executive.
§The Prime MinisterI think those important and weighty points have been covered by the answer which I have given to the House.
§Mr. HealyCould the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he has considered the speech of an important member of the Irish Government in regard to this matter?
§The Prime Ministeris the hon. Gentleman speaking for the Irish Government of Northern Ireland or for the Eire Government, I believe it is—the Government of the Republic?
§Mr. HealyThe official name is the Government of Ireland, not the Government of Northern Ireland, which is a very small part of Ireland.
§Mr. Emrys HughesIs the Prime Minister aware that there is a strong feeling in Scotland about the Oath being taken to a Queen Elizabeth II on the ground of historical inaccuracy? In view of his great claim to historical accuracy himself, will he not do something' to meet this very strong resentment in Scotland?
§The Prime MinisterI shall be very glad to hear from the hon. Member if he will put his question in the pillar box.
Asked by: Abena Oppong-Asare (Labour - Erith and Thamesmead)
Question to the Home Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when she plans to commence Part 12 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022.
Answered by Sarah Dines
The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act received Royal Assent on 28 April 2022. Under Part 12 of that Act, the Government legislated to extend the scope of the current Disregards and Pardons Scheme under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This change will enable a greater number of individuals convicted or cautioned for now repealed or abolished offences that regulated sexual activity between people of the same sex to apply to the Secretary of State for their conviction and/or caution to be disregarded, as long as they also satisfy the relevant conditions.
The Home Office has been making the necessary preparations and aims to bring the provisions into force as soon as possible.
Asked by: Charlotte Nichols (Labour - Warrington North)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will grant a pardon to people sentenced for the Salerno Mutiny.
Answered by Andrew Murrison
The Salerno mutiny of 1943 has been previously debated in the House of Commons and examined by legal authorities and the Department. Our position has not changed.
Asked by: Lord Hay of Ballyore (Democratic Unionist Party - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many royal pardons have been issued in the last 10 years.
Answered by Lord Wolfson of Tredegar - Shadow Attorney General
One Royal Prerogative of Mercy has been issued to Her Majesty the Queen in the last 10 years. Alan Turing was pardoned in December 2013.
In addition, five remission pardons have been granted since 2015. We have not been able to provide the requested information regarding sentence remissions from 2012 to 2015. Information prior to 2015 could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
Asked by: Lord Empey (Ulster Unionist Party - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many royal pardons were granted to people with terrorism-related convictions between 1991 and 2003.
Answered by Lord Wolfson of Tredegar - Shadow Attorney General
I can confirm that no applications for Royal Prerogative of Mercy were recommended to Her Majesty the Queen for terrorism related offences between 1991 and 2003.
Asked by: Lord Empey (Ulster Unionist Party - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Wolfson of Tredegar on 18 November (HL4189), why their records only date back to 2014; whether they were transferred to other government departments; and if so, which ones.
Answered by Lord Wolfson of Tredegar - Shadow Attorney General
The previous answer of 2014 referred to above was an error. Records held in the Ministry of Justice date back to May 2003 and the answer should have been clear that records therefore date back 18 years. We now know that records were originally held by the Home Office and were transferred to the Ministry of Justice after it was created in May 2007. These records are selected for permanent preservation and are transferred to The National Archives. I can confirm that no applications for Royal Prerogative of Mercy were recommended to Her Majesty the Queen for terrorism related offences during this time.
Asked by: Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Northern Ireland Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Randerson on 10 July 2014 (HL394), what was the outcome of the Northern Ireland Office’s investigation on the use of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy between 1987 and 1997.
Answered by Lord Caine - Shadow Minister (Northern Ireland)
The use of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy during the period 1987-1997 was relatively common and instances of this were not recorded in a single central list.
As Baroness Randerson said in her Written Answer, officials from the Northern Ireland Office contacted colleagues in the Department of Justice, The National Archives, the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland and the Royal Household to ascertain if they held relevant information.
While individual case records are likely to have been destroyed in accordance with proper protocols, all available details of issued Northern Ireland related RPMs have been located and collated. The Northern Ireland Office continues to meet its obligation to manage records in line with operational needs, best practice, relevant legislation and regulation, and guidance from The National Archives.
Asked by: Lord Empey (Ulster Unionist Party - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many Royal Pardons have been issued to those convicted of terrorism in the last 30 years.
Answered by Lord Wolfson of Tredegar - Shadow Attorney General
Our records date back to 2014 and there were no Royal Pardons issued to those convicted of terrorism in that time.
Asked by: Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Northern Ireland Office:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many Royal Pardons have been issued to people in Northern Ireland in the last 25 years.
Answered by Lord Caine - Shadow Minister (Northern Ireland)
The Royal Prerogative of Mercy (RPM) was used 16 times in relation to persons convicted and sentenced for terrorist offences in Northern Ireland between 2000 and 2002; seven times in 2000, six times in 2001, and three times in 2002. It was used to shorten (that is not waive or remove) sentences in relation to individuals who, for technical reasons, were not eligible for the early release scheme established under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998.
The RPM was used once in 1998 and once in 1999 in non-terrorism related cases in Northern Ireland. In one case, an individual was granted the RPM following assistance that person gave to the authorities (reduction in sentence for such assistance is now provided for on a statutory basis under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005). In the other, the RPM was used to commute a portion of a sentence for a soldier who spent time under close military arrest for an offence prior to conviction. Had this person been a civilian, such time (equivalent to being on remand) would have been deducted from the sentence, but there was no statutory provision for this at the time in relation to close military arrest.
Whilst the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is responsible for recommending the exercising of the RPM for terrorism-related cases in Northern Ireland, since the devolution of policing and justice in 2010, responsibility for making recommendations for the RPM in all other cases lies with the Minister of Justice in Northern Ireland.
The Northern Ireland Office does not hold complete records for 1996 or 1997 due to record retention policies.