Queen & Prince Charles vetted 1062 laws before passage in parliament

[viper37]

The Queen, Prince Charles vetted 1,062 laws before passage in parliament: The Guardian

More than 1,000 U.K. laws were secretly vetted by the Queen or Prince Charles before they were approved by the U.K. members of the parliament, The Guardian reports.
In some cases, the Queen used her powers to lobby for changes to draft laws affecting her own personal interests, the report added, such as persuading government ministers to change a 1970s transparency law in order to hide her private wealth from the public.
The Guardian found that 1,062 laws ranging from matters of justice, food policy and social security to smaller rules on road safety and hovercraft, as part of an investigation into the powers of the Queen's consent — an old parliamentary formality whereby the Queen is privately told of draft parliamentary bills affecting the Crown's interests and asked for consent to debate them.

Her refusal to give consent can deny the parliament the ability to debate the law in question.

The procedure had been based on a long-standing assumption that the Queen does not interfere with parliament proceedings. However documents from the U.K. National Archives revealed the the Queen has, in several instances, exercised her powers within the procedure to a larger extent than publicly known.

The Queen's representatives would not tell The Guardian how often she exercised her right to consent to ask for alterations to legislation since ascending the throne in 1952. Multiple statements from Buckingham Palace to the Guardian have emphasized that the role of sovereign in giving consent is a "longstanding convention and requirement of the parliamentary process."

"Consent is routinely sought by the government and agreed by the monarch as a matter of course," the statement reads.

"Queen's consent is a parliamentary process, with the role of sovereign purely formal. Consent is always granted by the monarch where requested by government. Any assertion that the sovereign has blocked legislation is simply incorrect," it adds.

In one instance, the Queen initially did not immediately give her consent to a formal request in 1982 to debate a parliamentary bill on the preservation of Britain's national monuments. The bill included a proposal to create an organization to preserve England's ancient monuments and historic buildings. The Queen's private secretary objected to certain clauses of the bill, which would allow the organization to subsume an existing royal commission. Members of the parliament did not receive consent until six months later. The royal commission in turn, survived for another 17 years.

[Monoriu]

Long live the Queen! 

[ulmont]

The earlier discussion was in the Brexit thread: http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,13772.msg1292794.html#msg1292794

[HVC]

How many total lead have passed in the same period?

[Caliga]

The other day I was reading about how the House of Lords works.

Lords Spiritual... really England?

[Josquius]

The other day I was reading about how the House of Lords works.

Lords Spiritual... really England?

And this is the reformed modern version.
Why when I were a lad....

[Sheilbh]

The other day I was reading about how the House of Lords works.

Lords Spiritual... really England?

Well there's an established Church. Parliament still needs to approve certain changes to the Church of England and there's about 4-5 Church Measures regulations that go through parliament every few years - normally related to pensions etc I think.

I've actually no problem with faith leaders in the House of Lords but the CofE is way over-represented. It is now relatively customary for the Chief Rabbi to become a Lord but we should have leaders from all denominations

[Caliga]

Yeah I knew y'all didn't have separation of church and state like we did, but I didn't realize the Bishops actually got seats in Parliament.  Of course, I also learned that the House of Lords has way less power than say, the US Senate, so there's that aspect to it.

[Sheilbh]

Yes - but as I've said elsewhere the Lords are actually very good at their job

They're probably quietly (and unpopularly) the most effective bit of parliament as a legislature.

[Habbaku]

The Lords should be allowed to govern without the interference of the Commons. 

[The Larch]

I've actually no problem with faith leaders in the House of Lords but the CofE is way over-represented. It is now relatively customary for the Chief Rabbi to become a Lord but we should have leaders from all denominations

Are there any Catholic bishops amongst the spiritual Lords? I seem to remember that nowadays after it was opened up the Chief Rabbi of the UK is part of the House of Lords, as you mentioned, as well as representatives from smaller protestant denominations, but I don't think that the Catholic church was represented at all. Any muslim leaders as well?

[The Brain]

Are there any Asatru Lords?

[Sheilbh]

I've actually no problem with faith leaders in the House of Lords but the CofE is way over-represented. It is now relatively customary for the Chief Rabbi to become a Lord but we should have leaders from all denominations

Are there any Catholic bishops amongst the spiritual Lords?

No. Catholic clergy from my understanding are only allowed to serve in government positions in the Vatican as a matter of canon law. I believe that Cardinal Basil Hume and Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor were both offered positions in the House of Lords. Murphy O'Connor said he actually prepared his maiden speech. I assume that was before the Vatican canon lawyers swept in

I seem to remember that nowadays after it was opened up the Chief Rabbi of the UK is part of the House of Lords, as you mentioned, as well as representatives from smaller protestant denominations, but I don't think that the Catholic church was represented at all. Any muslim leaders as well?

So it's customary for the Chief Rabbi (of the Ashkenazi community) to join the House of Lords but not automatic, so the current Chief Rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis, is not a member. But his two predecessors were and he probably will become Lord Mirvis.

With the Lords Spiritual/CofE bishops 5 they are members of the Lords because they are bishops. So the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, plus the Bishops of London, Winchester and Durham always sit in the House of Lords - then it's just 21 other bishops, I think by tenure. But once they retire as bishops they no longer sit in the House of Lords. Though it's customary for former Archbishops to be appointed to the Lords - and John Sentamu who was Archbishop of York has not yet been appointed to the Lords which has caused allegations of institutional racism, but his nomination is apparently in the next round of peerages.

There have been a few other clergy from some of the other (disestablished) Christian churches. There are Hindu, Muslim and Sikh members of the Lords but most of them are typically from the more "normal" Lords backgrounds: business, charity, law, politics, public service etc. But some of these Peers have a slight religious element - so for example Lord Singh of Wimbledon routinely represents the Sikh community at inter-faith events in the UK, similarly Lord Patel of Blackburn was chair of the British Hajj Committee and member of the Muslim Council of Britain - but I don't think either of them were clergy. So while I think "community leaders" have been appointed to the Lords, I don't think any imams, or priests of those faiths have become members of the Lords and I don't think there's an positions that routinely become members of the Lords but I could be wrong.

[Caliga]

Shelf is right.  I double checked just to be sure and JPII prohibited priests from serving in public office in 1980.  Actually, prior to that time, two Catholic priests had served in the US House of Representatives, which I hadn't heard before.

[The Brain]

Shelf is right.  I double checked just to be sure and JPII prohibited priests from serving in public office in 1980.  Actually, prior to that time, two Catholic priests had served in the US House of Representatives, which I hadn't heard before.

Employers can do that in the UK and US?