Show Search Form

Search Results

registered interest	true false
date	exactly: or between: and
answering body
answering dept id
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
hansard heading
house id
legislature	pref label
question text
tabling member constituency
tabling member printed
uin
answer	is ministerial correction true false date of answer exactly: or between: and answer text answering member constituency answering member printed grouped question UIN question first answered answering member label previous answer version answering member constituency answering member printed answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

1609116

registered interest
date	30/03/2023
answering body	Cabinet Office
answering dept id	53
answering dept short name	Cabinet Office
answering dept sort name	Cabinet Office
hansard heading	Disinformation
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to the Answer of 2 March 2023 to Question 153687 on Disinformation, when he plans to write to the hon. Member for Christchurch.
tabling member constituency	Christchurch
tabling member printed	Sir Christopher Chope
uin	177693
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 28/04/2023 answer text <p>All requested documentation has now been collated and assessed. A response letter has now been issued and deposited in the House Library.</p> answering member constituency Brentwood and Ongar answering member printed Alex Burghart question first answered 28/04/2023 12:02:57 answering member 4613 label Biography information for Alex Burghart previous answer version 68412 answering member constituency Brentwood and Ongar answering member printed Alex Burghart answering member 4613 label Biography information for Alex Burghart
tabling member	242 label Biography information for Sir Christopher Chope

1609126

registered interest
date	30/03/2023
answering body	Cabinet Office
answering dept id	53
answering dept short name	Cabinet Office
answering dept sort name	Cabinet Office
hansard heading	Civil Servants: Recruitment
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what recent steps his Department has taken to ensure that civil service recruitment processes comply with provisions in the Equality Act 2010 on discrimination against people according to their (a) socio-economic status and (b) other protected characteristics.
tabling member constituency	Bolton South East
tabling member printed	Yasmin Qureshi
uin	177752
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 21/04/2023 answer text <p>The Cabinet Office operates a policy requiring all employment opportunities to be made readily available to all.</p><p>The current selection process is designed to be fair and objectively identify the best candidates.</p><p>There are a number of safeguards built in to the process:</p><ul><li><p>Applications are anonymised until after the sift stage.</p></li><li><p>All sifters are expected to act in accordance with the Civil Service Code.</p></li><li><p>We would also expect an independent presence during any sift exercise. Each panel should include at least one member from outside of the line of business to provide an independent view.</p></li></ul><p>We are committed to providing services and developing policies which promote equality of opportunity and eliminate unlawful discrimination. We are an equal opportunities employer and will not unlawfully discriminate in any aspect of employment, including how employees are selected or how employees are treated.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Horsham answering member printed Jeremy Quin question first answered 21/04/2023 08:09:47 answering member 4507 label Biography information for Sir Jeremy Quin
tabling member	3924 label Biography information for Yasmin Qureshi

1609127

registered interest
date	30/03/2023
answering body	Cabinet Office
answering dept id	53
answering dept short name	Cabinet Office
answering dept sort name	Cabinet Office
hansard heading	Government Departments: Staff
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to the Answer of 28 March 2023 to Question 166164 on Government Departments: Staff, what the overall rating out of 100 recorded was in the most recent Leesman office surveys undertaken through the Government Property Agency by the (a) Cabinet Office, (b) Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, (c) Department for Education, (d) Department for International Trade, (e) Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, (f) Department for Work and Pensions, (g) Treasury, (h) Home Office, (i) Ministry of Defence, and (j) Ministry of Justice.
tabling member constituency	Islington South and Finsbury
tabling member printed	Emily Thornberry
uin	177715
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 21/04/2023 answer text <ol><li><p>The results from the most recent Leesman surveys participated by those departments listed is set out in the table below:</p></li></ol><p><strong> </strong></p><table><tbody><tr><td><p>Department</p></td><td><p>Date of participation of most recent Leesman survey</p></td><td><p>Leesman Index Score (out of 100)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Cabinet Office</p></td><td><p>November 2022</p></td><td><p>68.7</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy</p></td><td><p>November 2022</p></td><td><p>74.9</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Department for International Trade</p></td><td><p>November 2022</p></td><td><p>69.5</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities</p></td><td><p>November 2022</p></td><td><p>70.9</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>HM Treasury</p></td><td><p>November 2022</p></td><td><p>73.1</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Ministry of Justice</p></td><td><p>November 2022</p></td><td><p>60.0</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Department for Education</p></td><td><p>September 2022</p></td><td><p>49.4</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Ministry of Defence</p></td><td><p>September 2022</p></td><td><p>65.5</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Department for Work and Pensions</p></td><td><p>September 2021</p></td><td><p>54.6</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Home Office</p></td><td><p>July 2021</p></td><td><p>52.8</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p> </p> answering member constituency Brentwood and Ongar answering member printed Alex Burghart question first answered 21/04/2023 13:48:40 answering member 4613 label Biography information for Alex Burghart
tabling member	1536 label Biography information for Emily Thornberry

1609132

registered interest
date	30/03/2023
answering body	Cabinet Office
answering dept id	53
answering dept short name	Cabinet Office
answering dept sort name	Cabinet Office
hansard heading	Cabinet Office: Staff
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to the Answer of 28 March 2023 to Question 166164 on Government Departments: Staff, how many and what proportion of respondents to the most recent Leesman office survey undertaken by his Department (a) agreed and (b) disagreed with the statements about their main workplace that (i) it enables me to work productively, (ii) it supports me sharing ideas and knowledge amongst colleagues, (iii) it creates an enjoyable environment to work in, (iv) it contributes to a sense of community at work, and (v) it's a place I'm proud to bring visitors to.
tabling member constituency	Islington South and Finsbury
tabling member printed	Emily Thornberry
uin	177719
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 21/04/2023 answer text <ol><li><p>The most recent Leesman office survey was conducted in November 2022. The number of respondents that answered either agree or disagree to the questions listed is set out in the table below:</p></li></ol><p><strong> </strong></p><table><tbody><tr><td><p>Question</p></td><td><p>No. Respondent Agree (figures are aggregate by response of Strongly Agree, Agree or Slightly Agree)</p></td><td><p>No. Respondent Disagree (figures are aggregate by response of Strongly Disagree, Disagree or Slightly Disagree)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>it enables me to work productively</p></td><td><p>1250 (76.31%)</p></td><td><p>258 (15.75%)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>it supports me sharing ideas and knowledge amongst colleagues</p></td><td><p>1214 (74.57%)</p></td><td><p>206 (12.65%)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>it creates an enjoyable environment to work in</p></td><td><p>1239 (75.69%)</p></td><td><p>202 (12.34%)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>it contributes to a sense of community at work</p></td><td><p>1177 (71.99%)</p></td><td><p>250 (15.29%)</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>it's a place I'm proud to bring visitors to</p></td><td><p>1101 (67.67%)</p></td><td><p>192 (11.80%)</p></td></tr></tbody></table><p><strong> </strong></p> answering member constituency Brentwood and Ongar answering member printed Alex Burghart grouped question UIN 177721 question first answered 21/04/2023 13:53:37 answering member 4613 label Biography information for Alex Burghart
tabling member	1536 label Biography information for Emily Thornberry

1609259

registered interest
date	30/03/2023
answering body	Cabinet Office
answering dept id	53
answering dept short name	Cabinet Office
answering dept sort name	Cabinet Office
hansard heading	Civil Service: Recruitment
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what schemes the Government run to encourage people from lower socio-economic backgrounds into the civil service.
tabling member constituency	Bolton South East
tabling member printed	Yasmin Qureshi
uin	177813
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 21/04/2023 answer text <p>We have a range of schemes to encourage people from lower all backgrounds to join the civil service including:</p><p><strong> </strong></p><ul><li><p>Apprenticeships, a new strategy was launched in April 2022 and included a target for lower-socio economic backgrounds.</p></li><li><p>Accelerated development schemes like the Fast Stream. (Representation from lower socio-economic backgrounds in the Fast Stream has increased annually since 2016.)</p></li><li><p>Civil Service Commission’s Going Forward into Employment Scheme: Life Chances scheme, uses innovative approaches to recruit people from a wide range of backgrounds into the Civil Service with targeted recruitment of care leavers, prison leavers and veterans.</p></li><li><p>Internships such as the Summer Diversity Internship Programme, the scope of which has been broadened to include lower-socio economic backgrounds.</p></li><li><p>Mentoring and sponsorship such as the Ministry of Justice Graduate Aspiration programme.</p></li><li><p>Outreach is carried out by many of our departments within Schools, Colleges and Universities to raise awareness of the broad range of Civil Service careers available.</p></li><li><p>Work experience placements such as Movement to Work which supports employers to provide work placements that combine employability skills training with on-the-job experience.</p></li></ul><p> </p> answering member constituency Horsham answering member printed Jeremy Quin question first answered 21/04/2023 08:04:31 answering member 4507 label Biography information for Sir Jeremy Quin
tabling member	3924 label Biography information for Yasmin Qureshi

1609394

registered interest
date	30/03/2023
answering body	Cabinet Office
answering dept id	53
answering dept short name	Cabinet Office
answering dept sort name	Cabinet Office
hansard heading	Government Departments: Procurement
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask His Majesty's Government how many suppliers to government departments have been excluded from subsequent procurement processes on the grounds of either fraud or corruption.
tabling member printed	Baroness Adams of Craigielea
uin	HL7048
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 17/04/2023 answer text <p>The grounds for the exclusion of bidders from public procurement procedures are set out in the Public Contracts Regulations 2015. These rules set out the circumstances in which bidders must, or may, be excluded from a public procurement process.</p><p>In all cases, individual departments and other public sector bodies are responsible for their own decisions on these matters, and will hold their own records. This information is not held centrally.</p> answering member printed Baroness Neville-Rolfe question first answered 17/04/2023 14:29:10 answering member 4284 label Biography information for Baroness Neville-Rolfe
tabling member	631 label Biography information for Baroness Adams of Craigielea

1609421

registered interest
date	30/03/2023
answering body	Cabinet Office
answering dept id	53
answering dept short name	Cabinet Office
answering dept sort name	Cabinet Office
hansard heading	Coronation of King Charles III and Queen Camilla
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask His Majesty's Government whether they expect the Coronation Oath to be sworn by His Majesty King Charles III to differ from that sworn by Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II; if so, (1) in what ways, and (2) whether an amendment to the Coronation Oath Act 1688 will be required; and whether they will publish the wording of the Oath to be sworn by King Charles.
tabling member printed	Lord James of Blackheath
uin	HL7075
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 17/04/2023 answer text <p>The Coronation Oath Act 1688 requires that the Sovereign take the oath at his or her Coronation, and the text of the oath is set out in the Act. The precise form of words has been varied over successive coronations to reflect changes to the constitutional position. Except for one instance, the changes to the oath have been made without primary legislation - see the <a href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/feb/25/coronation-oath-changes-1" target="_blank">statement </a> [1] of Sir Winston Churchill to the House of Commons in February 1953 (HC Deb 25 February 1953 vol 511 cc2091-3).</p><p> </p><p>The text of the Oath will be published in due course and Parliament will be updated on any changes to the wording.</p><p> </p><p>[1] CORONATION OATH CHANGES HC Deb 25 February 1953 vol 511 cc2091-3<a title="Col. 2091 — HC Deb 25 February 1953 vol 511 c2091" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/feb/25/coronation-oath-changes-1#column_2091" target="_blank">2091</a></p><blockquote><a title="Link to this speech by Mr Winston Churchill" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/feb/25/coronation-oath-changes-1#S5CV0511P0_19530225_HOC_267" target="_blank">§</a><a title="Mr Winston Churchill" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/people/mr-winston-churchill" target="_blank">The Prime Minister</a><p>I should now like to make my statement in reply to Question No. 45.</p><p>The terms of the Coronation Oath were first prescribed by the Act 1 William and Mary, chapter 6. Since then its terms have been changed at least five times. On one occasion only has the change had legislative sanction, namely the change which was introduced as a result of the Act of Union with Scotland. The Treaty of Union had provided that in Scotland the religion professed by the people of Scotland should be preserved to them and confirmed by every King on his accession, and it was thought proper that similar provision should be made for the protection of the English Church in England. The Coronation Oath was altered and enlarged accordingly.</p><p>For the many subsequent changes, large or small, which have been made in the terms of the Oath there was no legislative sanction. They were made at various times, and, in particular, after the Act of Union with Ireland, after the Disestablishment of the Irish Church, and also after the passing of the Statute of Westminster. On the last occasion the question whether the changes that were necessary to meet the new constitutional position could be made without an Act of Parliament was carefully considered. and the Lord Chancellor and the Law Officers of the day advised that they could.</p><p>I am advised by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor that this opinion was clearly correct, and that the changes now proposed, which are, perhaps, less substantial than those made in 1937, but are required to meet the new constitutional position created by the <a href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/acts/indian-independence-act-1947" target="_blank">Indian Independence Act, 1947</a>, and other statutes, can also be made without legislative sanction.</p><p>Her Majesty's Government propose to follow this long line of precedents. To accept the view that changes in the terms of the Oath which are necessary to reconcile it with a changed constitutional <a title="Col. 2092 — HC Deb 25 February 1953 vol 511 c2092" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/feb/25/coronation-oath-changes-1#column_2092" target="_blank">2092</a>position cannot be made except with the authority of an Act of Parliament would be to cast doubt upon the validity of the Oath administered to every Sovereign of this country since George I.</p><p>If, as I am advised, the Coronation Oath can be lawfully administered in the terms now proposed, no useful purpose would be served by legislation. It must be remembered that at Westminster the Queen will be crowned Queen not only of the United Kingdom, but also of other self-governing countries of the Commonwealth. The form of Oath now proposed has been put to each of these countries and none has raised any objection, or has suggested that it is necessary to pass legislation in its own Parliament or in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Indeed, it would not be possible in the time now remaining before the Coronation to arrange for legislation to be passed by the Commonwealth countries concerned.</p></blockquote><blockquote><a title="Link to this speech by Mr Clement Attlee" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/feb/25/coronation-oath-changes-1#S5CV0511P0_19530225_HOC_268" target="_blank">§</a><a title="Mr Clement Attlee" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/people/mr-clement-attlee" target="_blank">Mr. Attlee</a><p>May I say, having had some experience of these difficulties, that I think it is extremely satisfactory that agreement has been obtained throughout the Commonwealth on this Oath, and that we should be well advised to allow this to proceed without legislation?</p></blockquote><blockquote><a title="Link to this speech by Sir Eric Fletcher" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/feb/25/coronation-oath-changes-1#S5CV0511P0_19530225_HOC_269" target="_blank">§</a><a title="Sir Eric Fletcher" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/people/sir-eric-fletcher" target="_blank">Mr. E. Fletcher</a><p>May 1, with respect. put this to the Prime Minister? While no one would wish to throw doubt on the validity of the Coronation Oaths in the past, in view of the fact that the Coronation Oath is a Parliamentary creation, and is intended as a limitation on the Prerogative, is it not desirable, though it may be inconvenient, that any changes that are proposed this year should have legislative sanction, for which, I am sure, there would be no difficulty in making the appropriate arrangements on a non-controversial basis? It is a matter which affects the rights of Parliament, and not merely the rights of the Executive.</p></blockquote><blockquote><a title="Link to this speech by Mr Winston Churchill" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/feb/25/coronation-oath-changes-1#S5CV0511P0_19530225_HOC_270" target="_blank">§</a><a title="Mr Winston Churchill" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/people/mr-winston-churchill" target="_blank">The Prime Minister</a><p>I think those important and weighty points have been covered by the answer which I have given to the House.</p></blockquote><blockquote><a title="Link to this speech by Mr Cahir Healy" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/feb/25/coronation-oath-changes-1#S5CV0511P0_19530225_HOC_271" target="_blank">§</a><a title="Mr Cahir Healy" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/people/mr-cahir-healy" target="_blank">Mr. Healy</a><p>Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he has considered the speech of an important member of the Irish Government in regard to this matter?</p></blockquote><p><a title="Col. 2093 — HC Deb 25 February 1953 vol 511 c2093" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/feb/25/coronation-oath-changes-1#column_2093" target="_blank">2093</a></p><blockquote><a title="Link to this speech by Mr Winston Churchill" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/feb/25/coronation-oath-changes-1#S5CV0511P0_19530225_HOC_272" target="_blank">§</a><a title="Mr Winston Churchill" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/people/mr-winston-churchill" target="_blank">The Prime Minister</a><p>is the hon. Gentleman speaking for the Irish Government of Northern Ireland or for the Eire Government, I believe it is—the Government of the Republic?</p></blockquote><blockquote><a title="Link to this speech by Mr Cahir Healy" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/feb/25/coronation-oath-changes-1#S5CV0511P0_19530225_HOC_273" target="_blank">§</a><a title="Mr Cahir Healy" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/people/mr-cahir-healy" target="_blank">Mr. Healy</a><p>The official name is the Government of Ireland, not the Government of Northern Ireland, which is a very small part of Ireland.</p></blockquote><blockquote><a title="Link to this speech by Mr Emrys Hughes" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/feb/25/coronation-oath-changes-1#S5CV0511P0_19530225_HOC_274" target="_blank">§</a><a title="Mr Emrys Hughes" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/people/mr-emrys-hughes" target="_blank">Mr. Emrys Hughes</a><p>Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a strong feeling in Scotland about the Oath being taken to a Queen Elizabeth II on the ground of historical inaccuracy? In view of his great claim to historical accuracy himself, will he not do something' to meet this very strong resentment in Scotland?</p></blockquote><blockquote><a title="Link to this speech by Mr Winston Churchill" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/feb/25/coronation-oath-changes-1#S5CV0511P0_19530225_HOC_275" target="_blank">§</a><a title="Mr Winston Churchill" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/people/mr-winston-churchill" target="_blank">The Prime Minister</a><p>I shall be very glad to hear from the hon. Member if he will put his question in the pillar box.</p></blockquote> answering member printed Baroness Neville-Rolfe grouped question UIN HL7076 HL7077 HL7078 question first answered 17/04/2023 15:04:12 answering member 4284 label Biography information for Baroness Neville-Rolfe
tabling member	3799 label Biography information for Lord James of Blackheath

1609422

registered interest
date	30/03/2023
answering body	Cabinet Office
answering dept id	53
answering dept short name	Cabinet Office
answering dept sort name	Cabinet Office
hansard heading	Coronation of King Charles III and Queen Camilla
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask His Majesty's Government whether the Coronation Oath to be sworn by His Majesty King Charles III will require him to promise and swear to govern according to statute and custom.
tabling member printed	Lord James of Blackheath
uin	HL7076
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 17/04/2023 answer text <p>The Coronation Oath Act 1688 requires that the Sovereign take the oath at his or her Coronation, and the text of the oath is set out in the Act. The precise form of words has been varied over successive coronations to reflect changes to the constitutional position. Except for one instance, the changes to the oath have been made without primary legislation - see the <a href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/feb/25/coronation-oath-changes-1" target="_blank">statement </a> [1] of Sir Winston Churchill to the House of Commons in February 1953 (HC Deb 25 February 1953 vol 511 cc2091-3).</p><p> </p><p>The text of the Oath will be published in due course and Parliament will be updated on any changes to the wording.</p><p> </p><p>[1] CORONATION OATH CHANGES HC Deb 25 February 1953 vol 511 cc2091-3<a title="Col. 2091 — HC Deb 25 February 1953 vol 511 c2091" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/feb/25/coronation-oath-changes-1#column_2091" target="_blank">2091</a></p><blockquote><a title="Link to this speech by Mr Winston Churchill" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/feb/25/coronation-oath-changes-1#S5CV0511P0_19530225_HOC_267" target="_blank">§</a><a title="Mr Winston Churchill" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/people/mr-winston-churchill" target="_blank">The Prime Minister</a><p>I should now like to make my statement in reply to Question No. 45.</p><p>The terms of the Coronation Oath were first prescribed by the Act 1 William and Mary, chapter 6. Since then its terms have been changed at least five times. On one occasion only has the change had legislative sanction, namely the change which was introduced as a result of the Act of Union with Scotland. The Treaty of Union had provided that in Scotland the religion professed by the people of Scotland should be preserved to them and confirmed by every King on his accession, and it was thought proper that similar provision should be made for the protection of the English Church in England. The Coronation Oath was altered and enlarged accordingly.</p><p>For the many subsequent changes, large or small, which have been made in the terms of the Oath there was no legislative sanction. They were made at various times, and, in particular, after the Act of Union with Ireland, after the Disestablishment of the Irish Church, and also after the passing of the Statute of Westminster. On the last occasion the question whether the changes that were necessary to meet the new constitutional position could be made without an Act of Parliament was carefully considered. and the Lord Chancellor and the Law Officers of the day advised that they could.</p><p>I am advised by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor that this opinion was clearly correct, and that the changes now proposed, which are, perhaps, less substantial than those made in 1937, but are required to meet the new constitutional position created by the <a href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/acts/indian-independence-act-1947" target="_blank">Indian Independence Act, 1947</a>, and other statutes, can also be made without legislative sanction.</p><p>Her Majesty's Government propose to follow this long line of precedents. To accept the view that changes in the terms of the Oath which are necessary to reconcile it with a changed constitutional <a title="Col. 2092 — HC Deb 25 February 1953 vol 511 c2092" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/feb/25/coronation-oath-changes-1#column_2092" target="_blank">2092</a>position cannot be made except with the authority of an Act of Parliament would be to cast doubt upon the validity of the Oath administered to every Sovereign of this country since George I.</p><p>If, as I am advised, the Coronation Oath can be lawfully administered in the terms now proposed, no useful purpose would be served by legislation. It must be remembered that at Westminster the Queen will be crowned Queen not only of the United Kingdom, but also of other self-governing countries of the Commonwealth. The form of Oath now proposed has been put to each of these countries and none has raised any objection, or has suggested that it is necessary to pass legislation in its own Parliament or in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Indeed, it would not be possible in the time now remaining before the Coronation to arrange for legislation to be passed by the Commonwealth countries concerned.</p></blockquote><blockquote><a title="Link to this speech by Mr Clement Attlee" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/feb/25/coronation-oath-changes-1#S5CV0511P0_19530225_HOC_268" target="_blank">§</a><a title="Mr Clement Attlee" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/people/mr-clement-attlee" target="_blank">Mr. Attlee</a><p>May I say, having had some experience of these difficulties, that I think it is extremely satisfactory that agreement has been obtained throughout the Commonwealth on this Oath, and that we should be well advised to allow this to proceed without legislation?</p></blockquote><blockquote><a title="Link to this speech by Sir Eric Fletcher" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/feb/25/coronation-oath-changes-1#S5CV0511P0_19530225_HOC_269" target="_blank">§</a><a title="Sir Eric Fletcher" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/people/sir-eric-fletcher" target="_blank">Mr. E. Fletcher</a><p>May 1, with respect. put this to the Prime Minister? While no one would wish to throw doubt on the validity of the Coronation Oaths in the past, in view of the fact that the Coronation Oath is a Parliamentary creation, and is intended as a limitation on the Prerogative, is it not desirable, though it may be inconvenient, that any changes that are proposed this year should have legislative sanction, for which, I am sure, there would be no difficulty in making the appropriate arrangements on a non-controversial basis? It is a matter which affects the rights of Parliament, and not merely the rights of the Executive.</p></blockquote><blockquote><a title="Link to this speech by Mr Winston Churchill" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/feb/25/coronation-oath-changes-1#S5CV0511P0_19530225_HOC_270" target="_blank">§</a><a title="Mr Winston Churchill" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/people/mr-winston-churchill" target="_blank">The Prime Minister</a><p>I think those important and weighty points have been covered by the answer which I have given to the House.</p></blockquote><blockquote><a title="Link to this speech by Mr Cahir Healy" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/feb/25/coronation-oath-changes-1#S5CV0511P0_19530225_HOC_271" target="_blank">§</a><a title="Mr Cahir Healy" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/people/mr-cahir-healy" target="_blank">Mr. Healy</a><p>Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he has considered the speech of an important member of the Irish Government in regard to this matter?</p></blockquote><p><a title="Col. 2093 — HC Deb 25 February 1953 vol 511 c2093" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/feb/25/coronation-oath-changes-1#column_2093" target="_blank">2093</a></p><blockquote><a title="Link to this speech by Mr Winston Churchill" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/feb/25/coronation-oath-changes-1#S5CV0511P0_19530225_HOC_272" target="_blank">§</a><a title="Mr Winston Churchill" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/people/mr-winston-churchill" target="_blank">The Prime Minister</a><p>is the hon. Gentleman speaking for the Irish Government of Northern Ireland or for the Eire Government, I believe it is—the Government of the Republic?</p></blockquote><blockquote><a title="Link to this speech by Mr Cahir Healy" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/feb/25/coronation-oath-changes-1#S5CV0511P0_19530225_HOC_273" target="_blank">§</a><a title="Mr Cahir Healy" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/people/mr-cahir-healy" target="_blank">Mr. Healy</a><p>The official name is the Government of Ireland, not the Government of Northern Ireland, which is a very small part of Ireland.</p></blockquote><blockquote><a title="Link to this speech by Mr Emrys Hughes" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/feb/25/coronation-oath-changes-1#S5CV0511P0_19530225_HOC_274" target="_blank">§</a><a title="Mr Emrys Hughes" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/people/mr-emrys-hughes" target="_blank">Mr. Emrys Hughes</a><p>Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a strong feeling in Scotland about the Oath being taken to a Queen Elizabeth II on the ground of historical inaccuracy? In view of his great claim to historical accuracy himself, will he not do something' to meet this very strong resentment in Scotland?</p></blockquote><blockquote><a title="Link to this speech by Mr Winston Churchill" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/feb/25/coronation-oath-changes-1#S5CV0511P0_19530225_HOC_275" target="_blank">§</a><a title="Mr Winston Churchill" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/people/mr-winston-churchill" target="_blank">The Prime Minister</a><p>I shall be very glad to hear from the hon. Member if he will put his question in the pillar box.</p></blockquote> answering member printed Baroness Neville-Rolfe grouped question UIN HL7075 HL7077 HL7078 question first answered 17/04/2023 15:04:12 answering member 4284 label Biography information for Baroness Neville-Rolfe
tabling member	3799 label Biography information for Lord James of Blackheath

1609423

registered interest
date	30/03/2023
answering body	Cabinet Office
answering dept id	53
answering dept short name	Cabinet Office
answering dept sort name	Cabinet Office
hansard heading	Coronation of King Charles III and Queen Camilla
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask His Majesty's Government whether the Coronation Oath to be sworn by His Majesty King Charles III will require him to use his power to cause law and justice in mercy to be executed in all his judgments.
tabling member printed	Lord James of Blackheath
uin	HL7077
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 17/04/2023 answer text <p>The Coronation Oath Act 1688 requires that the Sovereign take the oath at his or her Coronation, and the text of the oath is set out in the Act. The precise form of words has been varied over successive coronations to reflect changes to the constitutional position. Except for one instance, the changes to the oath have been made without primary legislation - see the <a href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/feb/25/coronation-oath-changes-1" target="_blank">statement </a> [1] of Sir Winston Churchill to the House of Commons in February 1953 (HC Deb 25 February 1953 vol 511 cc2091-3).</p><p> </p><p>The text of the Oath will be published in due course and Parliament will be updated on any changes to the wording.</p><p> </p><p>[1] CORONATION OATH CHANGES HC Deb 25 February 1953 vol 511 cc2091-3<a title="Col. 2091 — HC Deb 25 February 1953 vol 511 c2091" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/feb/25/coronation-oath-changes-1#column_2091" target="_blank">2091</a></p><blockquote><a title="Link to this speech by Mr Winston Churchill" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/feb/25/coronation-oath-changes-1#S5CV0511P0_19530225_HOC_267" target="_blank">§</a><a title="Mr Winston Churchill" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/people/mr-winston-churchill" target="_blank">The Prime Minister</a><p>I should now like to make my statement in reply to Question No. 45.</p><p>The terms of the Coronation Oath were first prescribed by the Act 1 William and Mary, chapter 6. Since then its terms have been changed at least five times. On one occasion only has the change had legislative sanction, namely the change which was introduced as a result of the Act of Union with Scotland. The Treaty of Union had provided that in Scotland the religion professed by the people of Scotland should be preserved to them and confirmed by every King on his accession, and it was thought proper that similar provision should be made for the protection of the English Church in England. The Coronation Oath was altered and enlarged accordingly.</p><p>For the many subsequent changes, large or small, which have been made in the terms of the Oath there was no legislative sanction. They were made at various times, and, in particular, after the Act of Union with Ireland, after the Disestablishment of the Irish Church, and also after the passing of the Statute of Westminster. On the last occasion the question whether the changes that were necessary to meet the new constitutional position could be made without an Act of Parliament was carefully considered. and the Lord Chancellor and the Law Officers of the day advised that they could.</p><p>I am advised by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor that this opinion was clearly correct, and that the changes now proposed, which are, perhaps, less substantial than those made in 1937, but are required to meet the new constitutional position created by the <a href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/acts/indian-independence-act-1947" target="_blank">Indian Independence Act, 1947</a>, and other statutes, can also be made without legislative sanction.</p><p>Her Majesty's Government propose to follow this long line of precedents. To accept the view that changes in the terms of the Oath which are necessary to reconcile it with a changed constitutional <a title="Col. 2092 — HC Deb 25 February 1953 vol 511 c2092" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/feb/25/coronation-oath-changes-1#column_2092" target="_blank">2092</a>position cannot be made except with the authority of an Act of Parliament would be to cast doubt upon the validity of the Oath administered to every Sovereign of this country since George I.</p><p>If, as I am advised, the Coronation Oath can be lawfully administered in the terms now proposed, no useful purpose would be served by legislation. It must be remembered that at Westminster the Queen will be crowned Queen not only of the United Kingdom, but also of other self-governing countries of the Commonwealth. The form of Oath now proposed has been put to each of these countries and none has raised any objection, or has suggested that it is necessary to pass legislation in its own Parliament or in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Indeed, it would not be possible in the time now remaining before the Coronation to arrange for legislation to be passed by the Commonwealth countries concerned.</p></blockquote><blockquote><a title="Link to this speech by Mr Clement Attlee" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/feb/25/coronation-oath-changes-1#S5CV0511P0_19530225_HOC_268" target="_blank">§</a><a title="Mr Clement Attlee" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/people/mr-clement-attlee" target="_blank">Mr. Attlee</a><p>May I say, having had some experience of these difficulties, that I think it is extremely satisfactory that agreement has been obtained throughout the Commonwealth on this Oath, and that we should be well advised to allow this to proceed without legislation?</p></blockquote><blockquote><a title="Link to this speech by Sir Eric Fletcher" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/feb/25/coronation-oath-changes-1#S5CV0511P0_19530225_HOC_269" target="_blank">§</a><a title="Sir Eric Fletcher" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/people/sir-eric-fletcher" target="_blank">Mr. E. Fletcher</a><p>May 1, with respect. put this to the Prime Minister? While no one would wish to throw doubt on the validity of the Coronation Oaths in the past, in view of the fact that the Coronation Oath is a Parliamentary creation, and is intended as a limitation on the Prerogative, is it not desirable, though it may be inconvenient, that any changes that are proposed this year should have legislative sanction, for which, I am sure, there would be no difficulty in making the appropriate arrangements on a non-controversial basis? It is a matter which affects the rights of Parliament, and not merely the rights of the Executive.</p></blockquote><blockquote><a title="Link to this speech by Mr Winston Churchill" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/feb/25/coronation-oath-changes-1#S5CV0511P0_19530225_HOC_270" target="_blank">§</a><a title="Mr Winston Churchill" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/people/mr-winston-churchill" target="_blank">The Prime Minister</a><p>I think those important and weighty points have been covered by the answer which I have given to the House.</p></blockquote><blockquote><a title="Link to this speech by Mr Cahir Healy" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/feb/25/coronation-oath-changes-1#S5CV0511P0_19530225_HOC_271" target="_blank">§</a><a title="Mr Cahir Healy" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/people/mr-cahir-healy" target="_blank">Mr. Healy</a><p>Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he has considered the speech of an important member of the Irish Government in regard to this matter?</p></blockquote><p><a title="Col. 2093 — HC Deb 25 February 1953 vol 511 c2093" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/feb/25/coronation-oath-changes-1#column_2093" target="_blank">2093</a></p><blockquote><a title="Link to this speech by Mr Winston Churchill" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/feb/25/coronation-oath-changes-1#S5CV0511P0_19530225_HOC_272" target="_blank">§</a><a title="Mr Winston Churchill" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/people/mr-winston-churchill" target="_blank">The Prime Minister</a><p>is the hon. Gentleman speaking for the Irish Government of Northern Ireland or for the Eire Government, I believe it is—the Government of the Republic?</p></blockquote><blockquote><a title="Link to this speech by Mr Cahir Healy" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/feb/25/coronation-oath-changes-1#S5CV0511P0_19530225_HOC_273" target="_blank">§</a><a title="Mr Cahir Healy" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/people/mr-cahir-healy" target="_blank">Mr. Healy</a><p>The official name is the Government of Ireland, not the Government of Northern Ireland, which is a very small part of Ireland.</p></blockquote><blockquote><a title="Link to this speech by Mr Emrys Hughes" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/feb/25/coronation-oath-changes-1#S5CV0511P0_19530225_HOC_274" target="_blank">§</a><a title="Mr Emrys Hughes" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/people/mr-emrys-hughes" target="_blank">Mr. Emrys Hughes</a><p>Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a strong feeling in Scotland about the Oath being taken to a Queen Elizabeth II on the ground of historical inaccuracy? In view of his great claim to historical accuracy himself, will he not do something' to meet this very strong resentment in Scotland?</p></blockquote><blockquote><a title="Link to this speech by Mr Winston Churchill" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/feb/25/coronation-oath-changes-1#S5CV0511P0_19530225_HOC_275" target="_blank">§</a><a title="Mr Winston Churchill" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/people/mr-winston-churchill" target="_blank">The Prime Minister</a><p>I shall be very glad to hear from the hon. Member if he will put his question in the pillar box.</p></blockquote> answering member printed Baroness Neville-Rolfe grouped question UIN HL7075 HL7076 HL7078 question first answered 17/04/2023 15:04:11 answering member 4284 label Biography information for Baroness Neville-Rolfe
tabling member	3799 label Biography information for Lord James of Blackheath

1609424

registered interest
date	30/03/2023
answering body	Cabinet Office
answering dept id	53
answering dept short name	Cabinet Office
answering dept sort name	Cabinet Office
hansard heading	Coronation of King Charles III and Queen Camilla
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask His Majesty's Government whether the Coronation Oath to be sworn by His Majesty King Charles III will require him to maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the Gospel, and the Protestant reformed religion established by law, and to preserve the rights and privileges of the Church and clergy.
tabling member printed	Lord James of Blackheath
uin	HL7078
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 17/04/2023 answer text <p>The Coronation Oath Act 1688 requires that the Sovereign take the oath at his or her Coronation, and the text of the oath is set out in the Act. The precise form of words has been varied over successive coronations to reflect changes to the constitutional position. Except for one instance, the changes to the oath have been made without primary legislation - see the <a href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/feb/25/coronation-oath-changes-1" target="_blank">statement </a> [1] of Sir Winston Churchill to the House of Commons in February 1953 (HC Deb 25 February 1953 vol 511 cc2091-3).</p><p> </p><p>The text of the Oath will be published in due course and Parliament will be updated on any changes to the wording.</p><p> </p><p>[1] CORONATION OATH CHANGES HC Deb 25 February 1953 vol 511 cc2091-3<a title="Col. 2091 — HC Deb 25 February 1953 vol 511 c2091" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/feb/25/coronation-oath-changes-1#column_2091" target="_blank">2091</a></p><blockquote><a title="Link to this speech by Mr Winston Churchill" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/feb/25/coronation-oath-changes-1#S5CV0511P0_19530225_HOC_267" target="_blank">§</a><a title="Mr Winston Churchill" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/people/mr-winston-churchill" target="_blank">The Prime Minister</a><p>I should now like to make my statement in reply to Question No. 45.</p><p>The terms of the Coronation Oath were first prescribed by the Act 1 William and Mary, chapter 6. Since then its terms have been changed at least five times. On one occasion only has the change had legislative sanction, namely the change which was introduced as a result of the Act of Union with Scotland. The Treaty of Union had provided that in Scotland the religion professed by the people of Scotland should be preserved to them and confirmed by every King on his accession, and it was thought proper that similar provision should be made for the protection of the English Church in England. The Coronation Oath was altered and enlarged accordingly.</p><p>For the many subsequent changes, large or small, which have been made in the terms of the Oath there was no legislative sanction. They were made at various times, and, in particular, after the Act of Union with Ireland, after the Disestablishment of the Irish Church, and also after the passing of the Statute of Westminster. On the last occasion the question whether the changes that were necessary to meet the new constitutional position could be made without an Act of Parliament was carefully considered. and the Lord Chancellor and the Law Officers of the day advised that they could.</p><p>I am advised by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor that this opinion was clearly correct, and that the changes now proposed, which are, perhaps, less substantial than those made in 1937, but are required to meet the new constitutional position created by the <a href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/acts/indian-independence-act-1947" target="_blank">Indian Independence Act, 1947</a>, and other statutes, can also be made without legislative sanction.</p><p>Her Majesty's Government propose to follow this long line of precedents. To accept the view that changes in the terms of the Oath which are necessary to reconcile it with a changed constitutional <a title="Col. 2092 — HC Deb 25 February 1953 vol 511 c2092" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/feb/25/coronation-oath-changes-1#column_2092" target="_blank">2092</a>position cannot be made except with the authority of an Act of Parliament would be to cast doubt upon the validity of the Oath administered to every Sovereign of this country since George I.</p><p>If, as I am advised, the Coronation Oath can be lawfully administered in the terms now proposed, no useful purpose would be served by legislation. It must be remembered that at Westminster the Queen will be crowned Queen not only of the United Kingdom, but also of other self-governing countries of the Commonwealth. The form of Oath now proposed has been put to each of these countries and none has raised any objection, or has suggested that it is necessary to pass legislation in its own Parliament or in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Indeed, it would not be possible in the time now remaining before the Coronation to arrange for legislation to be passed by the Commonwealth countries concerned.</p></blockquote><blockquote><a title="Link to this speech by Mr Clement Attlee" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/feb/25/coronation-oath-changes-1#S5CV0511P0_19530225_HOC_268" target="_blank">§</a><a title="Mr Clement Attlee" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/people/mr-clement-attlee" target="_blank">Mr. Attlee</a><p>May I say, having had some experience of these difficulties, that I think it is extremely satisfactory that agreement has been obtained throughout the Commonwealth on this Oath, and that we should be well advised to allow this to proceed without legislation?</p></blockquote><blockquote><a title="Link to this speech by Sir Eric Fletcher" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/feb/25/coronation-oath-changes-1#S5CV0511P0_19530225_HOC_269" target="_blank">§</a><a title="Sir Eric Fletcher" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/people/sir-eric-fletcher" target="_blank">Mr. E. Fletcher</a><p>May 1, with respect. put this to the Prime Minister? While no one would wish to throw doubt on the validity of the Coronation Oaths in the past, in view of the fact that the Coronation Oath is a Parliamentary creation, and is intended as a limitation on the Prerogative, is it not desirable, though it may be inconvenient, that any changes that are proposed this year should have legislative sanction, for which, I am sure, there would be no difficulty in making the appropriate arrangements on a non-controversial basis? It is a matter which affects the rights of Parliament, and not merely the rights of the Executive.</p></blockquote><blockquote><a title="Link to this speech by Mr Winston Churchill" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/feb/25/coronation-oath-changes-1#S5CV0511P0_19530225_HOC_270" target="_blank">§</a><a title="Mr Winston Churchill" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/people/mr-winston-churchill" target="_blank">The Prime Minister</a><p>I think those important and weighty points have been covered by the answer which I have given to the House.</p></blockquote><blockquote><a title="Link to this speech by Mr Cahir Healy" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/feb/25/coronation-oath-changes-1#S5CV0511P0_19530225_HOC_271" target="_blank">§</a><a title="Mr Cahir Healy" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/people/mr-cahir-healy" target="_blank">Mr. Healy</a><p>Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he has considered the speech of an important member of the Irish Government in regard to this matter?</p></blockquote><p><a title="Col. 2093 — HC Deb 25 February 1953 vol 511 c2093" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/feb/25/coronation-oath-changes-1#column_2093" target="_blank">2093</a></p><blockquote><a title="Link to this speech by Mr Winston Churchill" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/feb/25/coronation-oath-changes-1#S5CV0511P0_19530225_HOC_272" target="_blank">§</a><a title="Mr Winston Churchill" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/people/mr-winston-churchill" target="_blank">The Prime Minister</a><p>is the hon. Gentleman speaking for the Irish Government of Northern Ireland or for the Eire Government, I believe it is—the Government of the Republic?</p></blockquote><blockquote><a title="Link to this speech by Mr Cahir Healy" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/feb/25/coronation-oath-changes-1#S5CV0511P0_19530225_HOC_273" target="_blank">§</a><a title="Mr Cahir Healy" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/people/mr-cahir-healy" target="_blank">Mr. Healy</a><p>The official name is the Government of Ireland, not the Government of Northern Ireland, which is a very small part of Ireland.</p></blockquote><blockquote><a title="Link to this speech by Mr Emrys Hughes" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/feb/25/coronation-oath-changes-1#S5CV0511P0_19530225_HOC_274" target="_blank">§</a><a title="Mr Emrys Hughes" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/people/mr-emrys-hughes" target="_blank">Mr. Emrys Hughes</a><p>Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a strong feeling in Scotland about the Oath being taken to a Queen Elizabeth II on the ground of historical inaccuracy? In view of his great claim to historical accuracy himself, will he not do something' to meet this very strong resentment in Scotland?</p></blockquote><blockquote><a title="Link to this speech by Mr Winston Churchill" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/feb/25/coronation-oath-changes-1#S5CV0511P0_19530225_HOC_275" target="_blank">§</a><a title="Mr Winston Churchill" href="https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/people/mr-winston-churchill" target="_blank">The Prime Minister</a><p>I shall be very glad to hear from the hon. Member if he will put his question in the pillar box.</p></blockquote> answering member printed Baroness Neville-Rolfe grouped question UIN HL7075 HL7076 HL7077 question first answered 17/04/2023 15:04:12 answering member 4284 label Biography information for Baroness Neville-Rolfe
tabling member	3799 label Biography information for Lord James of Blackheath