§ Lord Marlesfordasked the Leader of the House:
What are the precedents for a Minister of the Crown to give either House of Parliament the personal views of the Sovereign on the merits, acceptability or desirability of a piece of legislation being considered by Parliament. [HL908]
§ The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard)Precedents are often helpful in deciding the appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance, but House of Lords' procedures are not settled by precedent. As I told the House on Monday 2 March (H.L. Deb., col. 955), procedure should be based on common sense and applied with regard to the particular circumstances. There are no precedents directly relevant to the case which was the subject of my statement.
21WA
§ Lord Marlesfordasked the Leader of the House:
Whether he will indicate those circumstances, other than when a Bill is fundamentally personal to the Sovereign and her family, or when Her Majesty's views would very soon become apparent through other channels, in which they regard it as appropriate or desirable to make known to Parliament the private views of the Queen on a piece of legislation under consideration; and whether the two particular circumstances referred to justify the practice singly or only in combination. [HL909]
§ Lord RichardA common sense approach to procedure means that every Bill must be considered separately. There is no circumstance which I can envisage where a Minister would make known to Parliament Her Majesty's views except on a Bill fundamentally personal to the Sovereign or her family and after full consultation with the Palace. I would expect the normal means of conveying the Queen's consent to Parliament to operate in the case of other Bills.