---

Privy Counsellors

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, has got into the habit of using these debates to provoke thought and debate on issues of importance. By so doing, there is the added benefit that he coaxes the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, away from academia to put on record his forward thoughts, which are always of interest and importance. As the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, himself mentioned, we have the excellent timing that Mr Quentin Letts asked pretty well the same question as we are asking on Radio 4 this morning. I understand that you can still hear that programme on the piece of machinery that my teenage son understands but that I have not yet managed to get to work. I am beginning to sound like those old judges who asked "who are the Beatles?", but noble Lords know what I mean. The programme posed the question, as did the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers: what are privy counsellors for? Certainly, when you look into the matter, there are shades of Blackadder about the paraphernalia around the Privy Council. I found it of interest that we have some 550 privy counsellors today, whereas Henry VIII made do with about 40. On the other hand, it was a whole lot more dangerous to be a privy counsellor for Henry VIII. Also, and this has run through both contributions so far, there is a seriousness about the Privy Council and its powers. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, rightly acknowledged, there is a powerful power of patronage for the Prime Minister in being able to grant the title "right honourable". I remember when I worked for Mr Callaghan, as Lord Callaghan then was, as an adviser in 10 Downing Street, he asked me to sound out a Labour Member of Parliament about whether he would like an honour. I always remember that the MP said to me, "There is only one honour I’m interested in and that is ‘the right honourable’ in front of my name". That is true of most practising parliamentary politicians. In the programme that I referred to, Michael Portillo said that "right hon." was the best club badge that you could get in the Westminster village, and I think that that is true. It would not really matter much if the council were no more than that—a quaint anachronism, one of the more dignified parts of our constitution or, as Quentin Letts, in his usual fashion put rather cruelly this morning, a prize for the fading "alumni of Parliament". There is also, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, pointed out, a real advantage in having the council as a ready store of licensed secret keepers for use in inquiries. The points that he made this evening bear further consideration as we look at constitutional and parliamentary reform. Those were worthwhile ideas. However, there is a more serious accusation against the Privy Council—that it is a loophole in our democracy and accountability. This morning, in that well listened-to programme, Mr Jack Straw confessed that the Privy Council could be used in "exchanging legitimacy for speed". He was referring to the particular instance of the use of the Privy Council in the case of Diego Garcia and the right of return of the Chagos islanders to their homeland. It is one single example, but it is such a shameful example that it bears examination. A group of citizens won their case in the courts of law yet the shadier part of our constitution provided by the Privy Council allowed that decision to be overturned and then upheld by this House. Tonight is not the time to examine the sad story of Diego Garcia in detail, but the more that is revealed of that story over 40 years, the more shameful it is for successive Governments of all political hues. However, it is right to ask whether the way that Privy Council powers were used does not shine a harsh spotlight on its powers and its uses by government. I await with interest the constitutional reform Bill, where we may be able to look at some of these matters. I remember in the 1980s and 1990s Mr Tony Benn having a strong campaign to abolish the royal prerogatives. At that stage, I tended to have a powerful Pavlovian reaction that anything Mr Benn proposed must automatically be wrong, but since then I have begun to review my position. The royal prerogatives—the Privy Council powers—create a loophole in our constitution, which is a weakness in terms of parliamentary democracy. I suspect that successive Governments have clung to this apparent anachronism not from a desire to protect the monarch from radical parliamentarians, but as a way of protecting themselves from parliamentary scrutiny. Although we have had some interesting comments about the more pleasant aspects of being called right honourable, being a member of the Privy Council and having this parliamentary badge, we must also look, particularly as we look towards the constitutional reform Bill, at whether some of the powers of the Privy Council are not in fact a useful smokescreen for an Executive who want to avoid parliamentary scrutiny.