1/7 This is an important & timely investigation into a bizarre and opaque parliamentary procedure that badly needs reform. Under Rule 9.11 of SAP standing Orders, no Bill can be debated at Stage 3 unless Queens Consent (QC) has (if needed) been obtained. theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/j…
2/7 QC is an effective veto by the Monarch on any legislation affecting the prerogative or the hereditary revenues of the Crown or (& this is bizarre bit) the personal property or personal interests of the Crown (in reality, the personal property of the Queen such as Balmoral.
3/7 So as part of formal legislative process, Queen & the Prince & Steward of Scotland have opportunity to influence legislation in order to protect their personal interests. There is no justification for this. But it is mandated by Scotland Act and thus a longer term challenge.
4/7 More immediately, the question for the Scottish Parliament is one of transparency. Given that QC, if needed, has to be obtained for a Bill to be debated at Stage 3, full disclosure should be required of the following.../
5/7 1. whether a Bill requires QC 2. if it has been obtained, were any amendments demanded or negotiated and what were they? 3. what was the justification for any amendments so that 4. Parliament has opportunity to reject any proposals it feels are not justified
6/7 Given this is a formal part of legislative process, there should be as much transparency & scrutiny of provisions of a Bill or amendments required in order2obtain QC. Anything less is admission that 1 party can legislate 2b exempted from lawseveryone else has to abide by.
7/7 credit to @LilyJulia_ for research behind this story. You can read more about QC at Westminster in this pamphlet for Westminster Parliamentary Counsel. assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
