| answer text |
<p>The decision not to summons all Privy Counsellors to the next Accession Council,
and to hold a ballot of Privy Counsellors not eligible to attend on an ex officio
basis, was taken with the collective agreement of the Lord President of the Council
and Number 10. The Royal Household was also consulted on the basis of this collective
advice. This decision-making process is consistent with the decision-making process
for previous Accession Councils.</p><p><strong> </strong></p><p>The decision to reduce
the size of the Accession Council and to hold a ballot for those ineligible to attend
on an ex officio basis applies to all Privy Councillors, regardless of their nationality
or their usual place of residence.</p><p><strong> </strong></p><p>St. James’s Palace
is the senior Royal Palace in the United Kingdom and the Court of St. James is the
Royal Court to which all Realm High Commissioners are accredited. St. James’s Palace
has therefore long been agreed to be the most appropriate setting for the Accession
Council.</p><p><strong> </strong></p><p>In any case, Westminster Hall will not be
available to host the Accession Council because an intensive and time critical series
of works will begin on the Parliamentary estate, including Westminster Hall, as soon
as Demise is announced. The purpose of these works is to prepare the estate and surrounding
areas for significant elements of ceremonial and procedural activity. Hosting the
Accession Council in Westminster Hall would prevent the completion of these critical
works, resulting in significant disruption to other national activity.</p><p><strong>
</strong></p><p>Attendance at an Accession Council is not a statutory matter and there
is no constitutional requirement to consult Privy Counsellors on any amendments to
attendance arrangements.</p><p><strong> </strong></p><p>Decisions on attendance arrangements
for future Accession Councils will be taken at the appropriate time.</p><p><strong>
</strong></p>
|
|
