Conclusions and recommendations
Conclusions are in plain text, recommendations are
in italics.
The process
1. We accept that
it is not always appropriate for the Government to publish its
legal advice, but individuals should not have to resort to freedom
of information requests to obtain material that is suitable for
publication and would throw light on the legislative process,
as happened in the case of the pamphlet on Queen's Consent. We
are encouraged by the positive attitude of First Parliamentary
Counsel towards the publication of potentially useful information.
(Paragraph 3)
2. We recommend
that the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel continue proactively
to publish its internal documents that could be of interest to
the wider public, unless there is a strong reason not to do so.
(Paragraph 3)
Origins and basis of the process
3. Consent is a matter
of parliamentary procedure. If the two Houses of Parliament were
minded to abolish Consent, they could do so by means of addresses
to the Crown, followed by a resolution of each House. Legislation
would not be needed. (Paragraph 20)
Should Consent continue to be part of the legislative
process?
4. We recommend
that, if the House authorities decide that Consent is needed for
a Private Member's Bill, the Government should as a matter of
course seek Consent. This would remove any suggestion that the
Government is using the Consent process as a form of veto on Bills
it does not support. Members should, in turn, make sure that
they publish the text of their Bill in time for Consent to be
sought. (Paragraph 27)
5. We entirely
accept that correspondence between the Government and the Royal
Household is not normally published. However, given that the
correspondence in this instance is a matter of routine, we recommend
that, when Consent is being sought for a Private Member's Bill,
the letter from the Department to the Royal Household should be
copied to the Member concerned if the Member requests this. This
would increase transparency and remove any perception of undue
Government influence. (Paragraph 29)
6. When the Queen
or the Prince of Wales grant their Consent to Bills, they do so
on the advice of the Government. We have no evidence to suggest
that legislation is ever altered as part of the Consent process.
The fact that the Prince of Wales has in the past both granted
his Consent to a Bill, in a constitutional capacity, and petitioned
against it, in a personal capacity, indicates the formal nature
of the process. However, the process of Consent is complex and
arcane and its existence, and the way in which the process operates,
undoubtedly do fuel speculation that the monarchy has an undue
influence on the legislative process. The fact that Consent is
sometimes characterised as a veto underlines this point. In reality,
it is a veto that could be operated by the Government, rather
than the monarchy. (Paragraph 35)
7. The United Kingdom
is a constitutional monarchy. The Queen has the right to be consulted,
to advise and to warn. But beyond that she should have no role
in the legislative process. Consent serves to remind us that
Parliament has three elements—the House of Commons, the
House of Lords, and the Queen-in-Parliament—and its existence
could be regarded as a matter of courtesy between the three parts
of Parliament. Whether this is a compelling justification for
its continuance is a matter of opinion. (Paragraph 41)
8. We recommend
that if a Bill is re-introduced in a subsequent session the precedent
of not seeking resignification of Consent be followed. (Paragraph
42)
9. We recommend
that Consent should no longer need to be signified personally
by a Privy Counsellor. Consent should instead be indicated on
the Order Paper. This would prevent a situation in which the absence
of a Privy Counsellor meant that Consent could not be signified,
and the debate could not take place, thus delaying progress on
the Bill. (Paragraph 43)
10. To improve
transparency, we recommend that, if Consent is required for a
Bill, the requirement be published as soon as the Bill is printed.
(Paragraph 44)
11. Currently,
in some instances Consent is signified at Second Reading, and
in others at Third Reading. We recommend that Consent be signified
at Third Reading in both Houses, in all instances. (Paragraph
45)
| 
