My Lords and Gentlemen,
As has been discussed before, the concentration of power into the hands of one man is a dangerous thing. We all agree that no one man should have unlimited power, to act on a whim without consequence. We also have agreed that we should do as much possible to facilitate the participation of as many people in Government as possible. Therefore, I think this Amendment will be useful and an improvement over the system we have now.
Quote:The Ministers of the Crown Act (Amendment) 2009
An Act to balance the powers of Government more effectively
WHEREAS the concentration of power in the hands of the King's chief minister may present conflicts of interests and authority far surpassing the ability of the Parliament or the people to counter-act;
AND WHEREAS the principles of efficient constitutional government demand independence of ministerial action and the ability of differing voices to be heard in the highest echelons of government.
BE IT THEREFORE ENACTED by the King's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
1. This Act may be cited as "The Ministers of the Crown Act (Amendment) 2009.
2. In Section 1 of the Schedule to the Ministers of the Crown Act 2008, the words following "administration of the Kingdom" shall be omitted.
3. This Act shall come into force upon receiving Royal Assent.
My Lords and Gentlemen,
This would leave the affected sentence incomplete:
Quote:1. The Justiciar shall be the chief minister of the Crown; shall advise the King on the appointment of all other ministers, and on the general administration of the Kingdom; and shall exercise the duties of any ministerial office that should fall vacant.
God save the King
Mr. Speaker,
No, actually it wouldn't. The Bill reads, "the words following "administration of the Kingdom" shall be omitted." Not, "the words, 'administration of the Kingdom' shall be omitted." What this Bill aims to do is remove the words following the above phrase, not the phrase itself.
I suppose my question is, "if not the first minister, then whom?" If the Justiciar is not to hold the portfolios of vacant ministries, who shall? The King?
My Lords and Gentlemen,
I thank the Archbishop for the correction, and then ask the same thing that James Marchmain asks, who?
God save the King
Also, the creation of the Office of Justiciar was created through Orders in Council and the regulations pertaining to that office and the other ministries are also legislated via Orders in Council. I'm not sure that it is appropriate, in that case, for Parliament to attempt, now, to legislate on this. The remedies to perceived problems with matters legislated via Orders in Council, it would seem, should come through revisions of the Orders in Council, not via an Act of Parliament.
My Lords and Gentlemen,
Although new ministries and offices must be created by Orders-in-Council, because the existing offices were codified and confirmed by Act of Parliament, it is actually completely appropriate for the Parliament to create new regulations for offices, or modify existing ones, since responsibility for them was essentially given to Parliament. The King may modify regulations through Orders-in-Council, yet, this does not bar Parliament from acting upon one of its own Acts.
In terms of who would occupy vacant portfolios, the answer is anyone but the Justiciar. The concern, as I gather, is that, if the Justiciar cannot occupy vacant offices, then government almost comes to a standstill. Yet, the point of this act is to make it incumbent on any Justiciar to seek diverse members of HM Government, instead of a possible one man government, as has existed in Hanover's past, which would be a threat no matter what affiliation one may possess. If it comes to the point that only a Justiciar can effectively exercise the prerogatives of government, the King might as well take a hand in government (not that I believe this Act is asking for that). The ultimate answer to the question is, and I do not mean this in a flip or coy way at all, whomever you can find.
My Lords and Gentlemen:
Not to be incendiary in any way and please don't read this concern as an attempt to be so, but what about a case wherein His Majesty's Government resign their offices all at once without warning and in which only one willing person remains to attend upon His Majesty as minister? The unfortunate nature of this community is that such occasions--which in any other realm would be unheard of or at best extraordinary--are commonplace.
I believe that the Government can continue with only one active minister to hold all portfolios until such time as other willing persons can be found to hold other ministerial posts.
Also, as the Ministers of the Crown Act 2008 enables the Sovereign to amend the schedule thereto by means of Orders in Council, it seems that Parliament should not, therefore, legislate in this regard since Parliament has given the King in Council the authority to make such amendments. As I see it, Parliament would be behaving as Indian-givers (pardon the pejorative term) were we to presume upon a power we have thus granted to the Crown.
I therefore urge the Most Reverend and Right Honourable Lord to reconsider this amendment.
My Lords and Gentlemen,
Although I understand and empathize with the Honorable Gentleman's concern over Parliament legislating in this realm, the fact remains that Parliament does still retain the right to assert is authority in this area. Again, the King does have various prerogatives in the matter of ministerial affairs, but, there is no legal barrier to to Parliament acting upon one of its own Acts. Simply because Parliament should not, does not mean it cannot it. The Ministers of the Crown Act simply states the King's right to act in response to any provisions of the Act, it does not keep Parliament from its duties. As well, Parliament cannot necessarily be Indian givers in that, the King retains ultimate authority as is constantly pointed out, and thus, this body is acting upon what power it has already been given, not making a promise with the King and taking it back. The lines have been defined, and Parliament is legislating. Yet, the point of the Honorable gentleman is well taken.
In terms of continuing the government, there are others who are available, and a few waiting the in the wings for citizenship. The Government can continue, and this Act assures that power may be distributed equally once it is reformed in whatever manner His Majesty wishes. I leave it to my Right Honorable colleague to expound further on his amendment.
My Lords and Gentlemen:
Since the wording of the Ministers of the Crown Act 2008 includes the words "that should become vacant" it seems clear that the Act only gives the premier minister all of His Majesty's portfolios when nobody else is available. It does not, as I see it, allow the first minister to horde all the portfolios to the exclusion of others.
Perhaps I am completely missing the thrust of this legislation but to me it seems, not only inappropriate relative to the concerns I have already expressed, but finally needless.