Royal assent is the method by which amonarch formally approves an act of the legislature, either directly or through an official acting on the monarch's behalf. In some jurisdictions, royal assent is equivalent topromulgation, while in others that is a separate step. Under a modernconstitutional monarchy, royal assent is considered little more than a formality. Even in nations such as theUnited Kingdom,Norway,the Netherlands,Liechtenstein andMonaco which still, in theory, permit their monarch to withhold assent to laws, the monarch almost never does so, except in a direpolitical emergency or on advice of government. While the power toveto by withholding royal assent was once exercised often byEuropean monarchs, such an occurrence has been very rare since the eighteenth century.
Royal assent is typically associated with elaborate ceremony. In the United Kingdom the Sovereign may appear personally in theHouse of Lords or may appointLords Commissioners, who announce that royal assent has been granted at a ceremony held at thePalace of Westminster for this purpose. However, royal assent is usually granted less ceremonially byletters patent. In other nations, such asAustralia, thegovernor-general (as the Monarch's representative) has the right to dissolve theparliament[1] and to sign a bill.[citation needed] InCanada, thegovernor general may give assent either in person at a ceremony in theSenate or by a written declaration notifyingParliament of their agreement to the bill.
The monarch would today notveto a bill, except on ministerial advice. Professor of constitutional law atKing's College LondonRobert Blackburn suggested the monarch's granting of royal assent is now limited to due process and is a certification that a bill has passed all established parliamentary procedures,[2] whereasManchester University professor emeritusRodney Brazier argued that a monarch can still refuse royal assent to a bill that "sought to subvert the democratic basis of the constitution". However, Brazier went on to admit doing such a thing would lead to "grave difficulties of definition" and it would be better if the monarch sought a different method of expressing their concern.[3] The only situation in which royal assent could be denied would be if a bill had been passed by the legislative houses or house against the wishes of the cabinet and the royal assent stage offered the latter with a last-ditch opportunity to prevent the bill from becoming law.[4]
Before theRoyal Assent by Commission Act 1541 (33 Hen. 8. c. 21) allowed for delegation of the power toLords Commissioners, assent was always required to be given by the sovereign in person before Parliament.[5] The last time it was given by the sovereign in person in Parliament was during the reign ofQueen Victoria at aprorogation on 12 August 1854.[6][a] The act was repealed and replaced by theRoyal Assent Act 1967. However section 1(2) of that act does not prevent the sovereign from declaring assent in person if he or she so desires.
Royal assent is the final step required for a parliamentary bill to become law. Once a bill is presented to the Sovereign, he or she has the following formal options:
The last bill that was refused assent was theScottish Militia Bill duringQueen Anne's reign in 1708.[10]
Erskine May'sParliamentary Practice advises "...and from that sanction they cannot be legally withheld", meaning that bills must be sent for royal assent, not that it must be given.[11] However, some authorities have stated that the sovereign no longer has the power to withhold assent from a billagainst the advice of ministers.[12][13]
Under modern constitutional conventions, the sovereign generally acts on, and in accordance with, the advice of their ministers.[14] However, there is some disagreement among scholars as to whether the monarch should withhold royal assent to a bill if advised to do so by their ministers.[15]
Since these ministers most often enjoy the support of Parliament and obtain the passage of bills, it is unlikely that they would advise the sovereign to withhold assent. Hence, in modern practice, the issue has never arisen, and royal assent has not been withheld.[8] This possibility did arise during the early days of thepremiership of Boris Johnson while the UK was negotiating aBrexit agreement with theEU. TheSpeaker of the House of Commons had allowed debate on a bill against the government's wishes, and the government of the day was effectively in a minority on the most pressing parliamentary issue at the time. As such, there were rumours that the prime minister might advise the then-sovereign, Elizabeth II, to withhold assent on an unfavourable bill.[16]
Originally, legislative power was exercised by the sovereign acting on the advice of theCuria regis, or Royal Council, in which senior magnates and clerics participated and which evolved into Parliament.[17] In 1265,the Earl of Leicesterirregularly called a full parliament without royal authorisation.[18] Membership of the so-calledModel Parliament, established in 1295 underEdward I, eventually came to be divided into two branches: bishops, abbots, earls, and barons formed theHouse of Lords, while the two knights from each shire and two burgesses from each borough led theHouse of Commons.[19] The King would seek the advice and consent of both houses before making any law.[20]
DuringHenry VI's reign, it became regular practice for the two houses to originate legislation in the form of bills, which would not become law unless the sovereign's assent was obtained, as the Sovereign was, and still remains, the enactor of laws. Hence, all acts include the clause "Be it enacted by the King's (Queen's) most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of theLords Spiritual andTemporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows...".[20] TheParliament Acts 1911 and 1949 provide a second potential preamble if the House of Lords were to be excluded from the process.
The power of Parliament to pass bills was often thwarted by monarchs.Charles I dissolved Parliament in 1629, after it passed motions and bills critical of—and seeking to restrict—his arbitrary exercise of power. During the eleven years ofpersonal rule that followed, Charles performed legally dubious actions such as raising taxes without Parliament's approval.[21]
The form of theCoronation Oath taken by monarchs up to and including James I and Charles I included a promise (in Latin) to uphold the rightful laws and customsquas vulgus elegerit.[b] There was a controversy over the meaning of this phrase: the verbelegerit is ambiguous, representing either the future perfect ("which the common peopleshall have chosen"), or perfect subjunctive ("which the common peoplemay have chosen"). Charles I, adopting the latter interpretation, considered himself committed only to uphold those laws and customs thatalready existed at the time of his coronation.[23] TheLong Parliament preferred the former translation, interpreting the oath as an undertaking to assent to any law passed by Parliament, as the representative of the "common people". The restorationConvention Parliament resolved the issue by removing the disputed phrase from the Oath.[24]
After theCivil War, it was accepted that Parliament should be summoned to meet regularly, but it was still commonplace for monarchs to refuse royal assent to bills. TheSedition Act 1661 even made it a treasonable offence to suggest that Parliament had "a legislative power without the king".[24] In 1678,Charles II withheld royal assent from a bill "for preserving the Peace of the Kingdom by raising theMilitia, and continuing them in Duty for Two and Forty Days,"[25] suggesting that he, not Parliament, should control the militia.[26]William III made comparatively liberal use of the royal veto, withholding assent from five public bills between 1692 and 1696.[24] These were:
Carafano suggests that William III considered the royal veto "his personal legislative tool".[24] By contrast, the last Stuart monarch,Queen Anne, withheld her assent from a bill just once. On 11 March 1708, she vetoed theScottish Militia Bill on the advice of her ministers. No monarch has since withheld royal assent from a bill passed by Parliament.[28][29]
During the rule of the succeedingHanoverian dynasty, power was gradually exercised more by Parliament and the government. The first Hanoverian monarch,George I, became heir presumptive and then king late in life. Speaking English as a second language and being at first unfamiliar with British politics and customs, he relied on his ministers to a greater extent than had previous monarchs. Later Hanoverian monarchs attempted to restore royal control over legislation:George III andGeorge IV both openly opposedCatholic emancipation[30][31] and asserted that to grant assent to a Catholic emancipation bill would violate theCoronation Oath, which required the sovereign to preserve and protect the establishedChurch of England from papal domination, and would grant rights to individuals who were in league with a foreign power which did not recognise their legitimacy. However, George IV reluctantly granted his assent upon the advice of his ministers.[31] Thus, as the concept of ministerial responsibility has evolved, the power to withhold royal assent has fallen into disuse, both in the United Kingdom and in the other Commonwealth realms.
In 1914,George V took legal advice on withholding royal assent from theGovernment of Ireland Bill; then highly contentious legislation that theLiberal government intended to push through Parliament by means of theParliament Act 1911. He decided not to withhold assent without "convincing evidence that it would avert a national disaster, or at least have a tranquillising effect on the distracting conditions of the time".[32]
It has been mooted that, in modern times, the government could advise the monarch to withhold royal assent, but that elected politicians should strive to avoid such a scenario.[33]
Royal assent is the final stage in the legislative process for Acts of theScottish Parliament. The process is governed by sections 28, 32, 33, and 35 of theScotland Act 1998.[34] After a bill has been passed, thePresiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament submits it to the monarch for royal assent after a four-week period, during which theAdvocate General for Scotland, theLord Advocate, theAttorney General or theSecretary of State for Scotland[35] may refer the bill to theSupreme Court of the United Kingdom (prior to 1 October 2009, theJudicial Committee of the Privy Council) for review of its legality. Royal assent is signified by letters patent under theGreat Seal of Scotland as set out in theScottish Parliament (Letters Patent and Proclamations) Order 1999 (SI 1999/737) and of which notice is published in the London, Edinburgh, and Belfast Gazettes.[36]
The authority of the Secretary of State for Scotland to prohibit the submission of a bill passed by the Scottish Parliament for royal assent was first used in January 2023 for theGender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill.[37]
Measures, which were the means by which theNational Assembly for Wales passed legislation between 2006 and 2011, were assented to by Queen Elizabeth II by means of anOrder in Council.[38][39] Section 102 of theGovernment of Wales Act 2006 required the Clerk to the Assembly to present measures passed by the assembly after a four-week period during which theCounsel General for Wales or theAttorney General could refer the proposed measure to theSupreme Court for a decision as to whether the measure was within the assembly's legislative competence. Following thereferendum held in March 2011, in which the majority voted for the assembly's law-making powers to be extended,[40] measures were replaced byActs of the Assembly, which have since become known as Acts of the Senedd.[41]
| Northern Ireland (Royal Assent to Bills) Order 1999 | |
|---|---|
| Statutory Instrument | |
 | |
| Citation | SI 1999/664 |
| Dates | |
| Made | 10 March 1999 |
| Commencement | 2 December 1999 |
| Other legislation | |
| Made under | Northern Ireland Act 1998 |
| Text of statute as originally enacted | |
Under section 14 of theNorthern Ireland Act 1998, a bill which has been approved by theNorthern Ireland Assembly is presented to the monarch by theSecretary of State for Northern Ireland for royal assent after a four-week waiting period during which theAttorney General for Northern Ireland may refer the bill to the Supreme Court. Assent is given by means of letters patent in the following form set out in theNorthern Ireland (Royal Assent to Bills) Order 1999 (SI 1999/664).[42]
Between 1922 and 1972, bills passed by theParliament of Northern Ireland were passed to theGovernor of Northern Ireland for royal assent under theGovernment of Ireland Act 1920, replacing the office ofLord Lieutenant.[43]
The Lieutenant Governors of theBailiwick of Jersey and of theBailiwick and Islands of Guernsey do not have the authority to grant assent, nor, as proxies, as the British Crown's representative, deliver assent, to legislation emanating from the respective legislatures of these islands. The States of Jersey Law 2005 abolishes the power of the Lieutenant Governor to directly impose a formal veto to a resolution of the States of Jersey.[44]
The equivalent of the royal assent is formally granted or formally refused on the formal advice of the Committee of Council for the Affairs of Jersey and Guernsey in pursuance of Queen Elizabeth II's Order-in-Council of 22 February 1952. A recent example when the equivalent of royal assent was refused was in 2007, concerning reforms to the constitution of theChief Pleas of Sark.[45] (A revised version of the proposed reforms was subsequently given the equivalent of royal assent.[46])
Special procedures apply to legislation passed by theTynwald of theIsle of Man. Before the Lordship of the Island was purchased by the British Crown in 1765 (theRevestment), the assent of theLord of Mann to a bill was signified by letter to the Governor.[47] After 1765, the equivalent of royal assent was at first signified by the letter from the Secretary of State to the Governor;[48] but, during theBritish Regency, the practice began of granting the equivalent of royal assent to Manx legislation by Orders in Council,[49] which continues to this day, though limited to exceptional cases since 1981. That year theRoyal Assent to Legislation (Isle of Man) Order 1981 delegated to theLieutenant Governor the power to grant royal assent to bills passed byTynwald. The Lieutenant Governor must, however, refer any bill impacting on reserved powers (defence, foreign relations, nationality law, the relationship between the Island and the United Kingdom and any matters relating to the Monarch) to the British government for advice, on which he is required to act.[50]
Since 1993, theSodor and Mandiocesan synod of theChurch of England within theProvince of York has had power to enact measures making provision "with respect to any matter concerning the Church of England in the Island". If approved by Tynwald, a measure "shall have the force and effect of an Act of Tynwald upon the Royal Assent thereto being announced to the Tynwald".[51] Between the passing of theChurch (Application of General Synod Measures) Act 1979 and 1993, the diocesan synod had similar powers, but limited to the extension to the Isle of Man of measures of theGeneral Synod.[52] Before 1994, the equivalent of royal assent was granted by Order in Council, as for a bill, but the power to grant the equivalent of royal assent to measures has now been delegated to the Lieutenant Governor by theSodor and Man Diocesan Synod Measures Order 1994. A Measure does not requirepromulgation.[53]
King's Consent and Prince's Consent are distinct from royal assent. They are required only for bills affecting theroyal prerogative and the personal property and "personal interests" of the monarch, and are granted before parliament has debated or voted to pass a bill. They are internal parliamentary rules of procedure that could, in principle, be dispensed with by Parliament. Consent is always granted on the advice of the government; the monarch never takes the decision to withhold consent.
InCommonwealth realms other than the UK, royal assent is granted or withheld either by the realm's sovereign or, more frequently, by the representative of the sovereign, thegovernor-general.[54] In Australia and Canada, which arefederations, assent in each state or province is granted or withheld by the relevantgovernor orlieutenant governor, respectively.
In Australia, in the special case of a bill proposing to amend the constitution, the bill is submitted to the electorate in a referendum and must receive majority support before receiving royal assent. All other bills passed normally by the Parliament become acts of Parliament once they have received royal assent.[55]
InSolomon Islands andTuvalu, royal assent may not be refused and constitutional provisions require it to be granted in a timely manner.[56][57] InAntigua and Barbuda,Saint Lucia, andSaint Vincent and the Grenadines, the governor-general may not withhold assent if a bill has fulfilled all constitutional requirements.[58][59][60] InPapua New Guinea, no royal assent is required for the passage of bills and legislation instead becomes effective on the certification of thespeaker of the national parliament.[61]
For Canada, the lieutenant governors may defer assent to thegovernor general,[62] who may defer assent to federal bills to the sovereign.[63] If the governor general is unable to give assent, it can be done by adeputy, specificallya justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. Through Canadian history, royal assent has been withheld by a lieutenant governor approximately 90 times, the last occurring in Saskatchewan in 1961.[64]
It is not actually necessary for the governor general to sign a bill passed by a legislature, the signature being merely an attestation. In each case, the parliament must be apprised of the granting of assent before the bill is considered to have become law.[65] Two methods are available: the sovereign's representatives may grant assent in the presence of both houses of parliament. Alternatively, each house may be notified separately, usually by the speaker of that house. Both houses must be notified on the same day. Notice to the House of Commons while it is not in session may be given by way of publishing a special issue of theJournals of the House of Commons. The Senate must be sitting and the governor general's letter read aloud by the speaker.[65]
While royal assent has not been withheld for a bill backed by the government in the United Kingdom since 1708, it has often been withheld in British colonies and former colonies by governors acting on royal instructions. In theUnited States Declaration of Independence, colonists complained that George III "has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good [and] has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them."[66]
Since theBalfour Declaration of 1926 and theStatute of Westminster 1931, all the Commonwealth realms have been sovereign kingdoms, the monarch and governors-general acting solely on the advice of the local ministers, who generally maintain the support of the legislature and are the ones who secure the passage of bills. They, therefore, are unlikely to advise the sovereign, or their representative, to withhold assent. The power to withhold the royal assent was exercised byAlberta's Lieutenant Governor,John C. Bowen, in 1937, in respect of three bills passed in the legislature dominated byWilliam Aberhart'sSocial Credit party. Two bills sought to put banks under the authority of the province, thereby interfering with the federal government's powers. The third, theAccurate News and Information Bill, purported to force newspapers to print government rebuttals to stories to which the provincial cabinet objected. The unconstitutionality of all three bills was later confirmed by theSupreme Court of Canada and by theJudicial Committee of the Privy Council.[67]
In Australia, technical issues arose with the royal assent in both 1976 and 2001. In 1976, a bill originating in theHouse of Representatives was mistakenly submitted to the governor-general and assented to. However, it was later discovered that it had not been passed by the Senate. The error arose because two bills of the same title had originated from the House. The governor-general revoked the first assent, before assenting to the bill which had actually passed the Senate and the House. The same procedure was followed to correct a similar error that arose in 2001.[68]
In the United Kingdom, a bill is presented for royal assent after it has passed all the required stages in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Under the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, the House of Commons may, under certain circumstances, direct that a bill be presented for assent despite lack of passage by the House of Lords.[69][70]
A list of all bills that have thus passed Parliament is drawn up by theClerk of the Crown in Chancery; this list is then approved by theClerk of the Parliaments. (The Prime Minister, other ministers, and Privy Counsellors do not normally have any involvement in drawing up the list.) The Clerk of the Crown then preparesletters patent listing all the relevant bills, which are then signed by the monarch and sealed.[71]
Officially, assent is granted by the sovereign or byLords Commissioners authorised to act byletters patent. Royal assent may be granted in parliament or outside parliament; in the latter case, each house must be separately notified before the bill takes effect.
TheClerk of the Parliaments, the chief official of the House of Lords, traditionally pronounces a formula inAnglo-NormanLaw French, indicating the sovereign's decision. The granting of royal assent to asupply bill is indicated with the words "Le Roy remercie ses bons sujets, accepte leur benevolence, et ainsi le veult",[8] translated as "The King thanks his good subjects, accepts their bounty, and so wills it." For other public orprivate bills, the formula is simply "Le Roy le veult" ("the King wills it"). Forpersonal bills, the phrase is "Soit fait comme il est désiré" ("let it be done as it is desired"). The appropriate formula for withholding assent is the euphemistic "Le Roy s'avisera" ("the King will consider it").[72]
When the sovereign is female,Le Roy is replaced byLa Reyne.
Before the reign of Henry VIII, the sovereign always granted their assent in person. The sovereign, wearing the Crown, would be seated on the throne in the Lords chamber, surrounded byheralds and members of the royal court—a scene that nowadays is repeated only at the annualState Opening of Parliament. The Commons, led by theirSpeaker, would listen from the Bar of the Lords, just outside the chamber. The Clerk of the Parliaments presented the bills awaiting assent to the monarch, save that supply bills were traditionally brought up by the Speaker. The Clerk of the Crown, standing on the sovereign's right, then read aloud the titles of the bills (in earlier times, the entire text of the bills). The Clerk of the Parliaments, standing on the sovereign's left, responded by stating the appropriate Norman French formula.[73]
A new device for granting assent was created during the reign of KingHenry VIII. In 1542, Henry sought to execute his fifth wife,Catherine Howard, whom he accused of committing adultery; the execution was to be authorised not after a trial but by abill of attainder, to which he would have to personally assent after listening to the entire text. Henry decided that "the repetition of so grievous a Story and the recital of so infamous a crime" in his presence "might reopen a Wound already closing in the Royal Bosom".[74] Therefore, Parliament inserted a clause into the Act of Attainder, providing that assent granted by Commissioners "is and ever was and ever shall be, as good" as assent granted by the sovereign personally.[75] The procedure was used only five times during the 16th century, but more often during the 17th and 18th centuries, especially whenGeorge III's health began to deteriorate.Queen Victoria became the last monarch to personally grant assent in 1854.[76][77]
When granting assent by commission, the sovereign authorises three or more (normally five) lords who areprivy counsellors to declare assent in their name. TheLords Commissioners, as the monarch's representatives are known, wear scarlet parliamentary robes and sit on a bench between the throne and theWoolsack. The Lords Reading Clerk reads the commission aloud; the senior commissioner then states, "My Lords, in obedience to His Majesty's Commands, and by virtue of the Commission which has been now read, We do declare and notify to you, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament assembled, that His Majesty has given His Royal Assent to the several Acts in the Commission mentioned."[78][79]
During the 1960s, the ceremony of assenting by commission was discontinued and is now only employed once a year, at the end of the annual parliamentary session. In 1960, the Gentleman Usher of theBlack Rod arrived to summon the House of Commons during a heated debate and several members protested against the disruption by refusing to attend the ceremony. The debacle was repeated in 1965; this time, when the Speaker left the chair to go to the House of Lords, some members continued to make speeches. As a result, theRoyal Assent Act 1967 was passed, creating an additional form for the granting of royal assent. As the attorney-general explained, "there has been a good deal of resentment not only at the loss of Parliamentary time that has been involved but at the breaking of the thread of a possibly eloquent speech and the disruption of a debate that may be caused."[80]
Under the Royal Assent Act 1967, royal assent can be granted by the sovereign in writing, by means of letters patent, that are presented to the presiding officer of each house of Parliament.[73] Then, the presiding officer makes a formal, but simple statement to the house, acquainting each house that royal assent has been granted to the acts mentioned. Thus, unlike the granting of royal assent by the monarch in person or by royal commissioners, the method created by the Royal Assent Act 1967 does not require both houses to meet jointly for the purpose of receiving the notice of royal assent. The standard text of the letters patent is set out in theCrown Office (Forms and Proclamations Rules) Order 1992 (SI 1992/1730),[81] with minor amendments in 2000. In practice this remains the standard method, a fact that is belied by the wording of the letters patent for the appointment of the Royal Commissioners and by the wording of the letters patent for the granting of royal assent in writing under the 1967 Act ("... And forasmuch as We cannot at this time be present in the Higher House of Our said Parliament being the accustomed place for giving Our Royal Assent...").[82]
Independently of the method used to signify royal assent, it is the responsibility of theClerk of the Parliaments, once the assent has been duly notified to both houses, not only to endorse the act in the name of the monarch with the formal Norman French formula, but to certify that assent has been granted.[83] The Clerk signs one authentic copy of the bill and inserts the date (in English) on which the assent was notified to the two houses after the title of the act.[84]
In Australia, the formal ceremony of granting assent in parliament has not been regularly used since the early 20th century. Today, the bill is sent to the governor's or thegovernor-general's residence by the house in which it originated. The governor-general then signs the bill, and notifies the president of the Senate and the speaker of the House of Representatives, who notify their respective houses of the governor-general's action.[85] A similar practice is followed in New Zealand, where the governor-general has not granted the royal assent in person in parliament since 1875.[85]
In Canada, the traditional ceremony for granting assent in Parliament is still regularly used, long after it had been discontinued in the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms. One result, conceived as part of a string of acts intended to demonstrate Canada's status as an independent realm, was that KingGeorge VI personally assented to nine bills of theCanadian Parliament during histour of Canada in 1939—85 years after his great-grandmother,Queen Victoria, had last granted royal assent personally in the United Kingdom. Under the Royal Assent Act, 2002, the alternative practice of granting assent in writing, with each house being notified separately, was brought into force. Thespeaker of the Senate or a representative reads to the senators the letters from thegovernor general regarding the written declaration of royal assent.[86] As the act provides, royal assent is to be signified—by the governor general or by a deputy, usually a Justice of theSupreme Court.[76]
The royal assent ceremony takes place in theSenate, as the sovereign is traditionally barred from the House of Commons.[87] On the day of the event, the speaker of the Senate will read to the chamber a notice from thesecretary to the governor general indicating when the viceroy or a deputy thereof will arrive. The Senate thereafter cannot adjourn until after the ceremony. The speaker moves to sit beside the throne. The mace bearer, with mace in hand, stands adjacent to him or her, and the governor general enters to take the speaker's chair.[88]
Theusher of the Black Rod is then commanded by the speaker to summon the members of Parliament, who follow black rod back to the Senate, thesergeant-at-arms carrying the mace of the House of Commons. In the Senate, those from the Commons stand behind the bar, while black rod proceeds to stand next to the governor general, who then nods their head to signify royal assent to the presented bills (which do not include supply bills). Once the list of bills is complete, the clerk of the Senate states: "in his [or her] majesty's name, his [or her] excellency the governor general [or the deputy] doth assent to these bills."[88]
If there are any supply bills to receive royal assent, the speaker of the House of Commons will read their titles and the Senate clerk repeats them to the governor general, who nods their head to communicate royal assent. When these bills have all been assented to, the clerk of the Senate recites "in his [or her] majesty's name, his [or her] excellency the governor general [or the deputy] thanks his [or her] loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence, and assents to these bills." The governor general or their deputy then depart Parliament.[89]
In some monarchies—such as Belgium, Denmark, Japan, Malaysia, the Netherlands,[90] Norway, Spain, and Thailand—promulgation is required as well as royal assent. In Sweden, however, themonarch was removed from the processin 1975; instead, thegovernment (i.e. the cabinet chaired by thePrime Minister) officially promulgates laws. In both cases, however, the process of assent and promulgation is usually a formality, whether by constitutional convention or by an explicit provision of the constitution.
In Article 109 of the constitution: "The Kingsanctions andpromulgates laws". In Belgium, the royal assent is calledsanction royale /koninklijke bekrachtiging (Royal Sanction), and is granted by the King signing the proposed statute (and a minister countersigning it). The Belgian constitution requires a theoretically possible refusal of royal sanction to be countersigned—as any other act of the monarch—by a minister responsible before the House of Representatives. The monarch promulgates the law, meaning that he or she formally orders that the law be officially published and executed. In 1990, whenKing Baudouin advised his cabinet he could not, in conscience, sign a bill decriminalising abortion (a refusal patently not covered by a responsible minister), theCouncil of Ministers, at the King's own request, declared Baudouin incapable of exercising his powers. In accordance with the Belgian constitution, upon the declaration of the Sovereign's incapacity, the Council of Ministers assumed the powers of the head of state until parliament could rule on the King's incapacity and appoint a regent. The bill was then assented to by all members of the Council of Ministers "on behalf of the Belgian People".[91] In a joint meeting, both houses of parliament declared the King capable of exercising his powers again the next day.[92]
Articles 6 and 7 of theConstitution of Japan mention the decisions of the parliament that require the approval of theEmperor. These are some of the so-called "acts of state" (国事行為,kokuji-kōi), and according to Article 3 of the Constitution, acts of state require the advice and approval of the Cabinet, which is the responsibility of the Cabinet.[93]
The constitution ofJordan grants its monarch the right to withhold assent to laws passed by its parliament. Article 93 of that document gives the Jordanian Sovereign six months to sign or veto any legislation sent to him from the National Assembly. If he vetoes it within that timeframe, the assembly may override his veto by a two-thirds vote of both houses. Otherwise, the law does not go into effect, but it may be reconsidered in the next session of the assembly. If the monarch fails to act within six months of the bill being presented to him, it becomes law without his signature.[94]
While Article 34 of the constitution ofLuxembourg formerly required thegrand duke or duchess tosanction andpromulgate a new law for it to take effect, the required sanction was removed in 2008, after Grand DukeHenri informed hisprime minister that he could not in good conscience assent to a bill to permiteuthanasia in the country. The subsequent constitutional amendment removed the need for assent while retaining the need for the Grand Duke to promulgate new laws.[95] The Grand-Duke's signature is still required, but does not imply assent, onlypromulgation (announcement that the law has been enacted by Parliament).[96] The Grand-Duke did sign the Euthanasia Act under this new constitutional arrangement.[97]
Article 66(3) of theFederal Constitution of Malaysia provides that after a bill was passed by both Houses ofParliament, it shall be presented to theYang di-Pertuan Agong (King of Malaysia) for his assent before being gazetted in order to become law. However, since 1983, if a bill does not received royal assent within 30 days after it was presented to the King, the bill will automatically become law as per Article 66(4A) of the Constitution.[98][99] Likewise, since 1994, if a Ruler of aMalaysian states does not grant his assent to a bill passed by the state Legislature within the 30 days period, the bill will automatically become law. As of 2016, the only federal law that failed to receive royal assent but still become law as per Article 66(4A) is theNational Security Council Act 2016.[99]
Articles 77–79 of theNorwegian constitution specifically grant themonarch of Norway the right to withhold royal assent from any bill passed by theStorting.[100] Should the monarch ever choose to exercise this privilege, Article 79 provides a means by which his veto may be over-ridden: "If a Bill has been passed unaltered by two sessions of the Storting, constituted after two separate successive elections and separated from each other by at least two intervening sessions of the Storting, without a divergent Bill having been passed by any Storting in the period between the first and last adoption, and it is then submitted to the King with a petition that His Majesty shall not refuse his assent to a Bill which, after the most mature deliberation, the Storting considers to be beneficial, it shall become law even if the Royal Assent is not accorded before the Storting goes into recess."[100]
In Part II of the1978 Spanish constitution, among provisions concerning the Crown, Article 62(a) invests thesanction (i.e. royal assent) andpromulgation of laws with themonarch of Spain. Chapter 2 of Part III, concerning the Drafting of Bills, outlines the method by which bills are passed. According to Article 91, the monarch shall give their assent and promulgate the new law within fifteen days of passage of a bill by the Cortes Generales. Article 92 invests the monarch with the right to call for a referendum, on the advice of thepresident of the government (commonly referred to in English as the prime minister) and the authorisation of the cortes.
No constitutional provision allows the monarch to directly veto legislation; however, neither does the constitution prohibit the Sovereign from withholding royal assent. When the Spanish media asked KingJuan Carlos I if he would endorse the bill legalisingsame-sex marriages, he answered: "Soy el Rey de España y no el de Bélgica" ("I am the King of Spain and not that of Belgium")—a reference to KingBaudouin of Belgium, who had refused to sign the Belgian law legalising abortion.[101] The King gave royal assent to Law 13/2005 on 1 July 2005; the law wasgazetted in theBoletín Oficial del Estado on 2 July and came into effect on 3 July 2005.[102]
The powers of the National Assembly are enshrined in Chapter 6, Part 7 of the2007 Constitution of Thailand.[103] The main powers of the National Assembly are its legislative powers. The procedure for an enactment of a bill is as follows:
Articles 41 and 68 of theconstitution empower theKing to withhold royal assent from bills adopted by theLegislative Assembly.[109] In 2010, the kingdom moved towards greater democracy, with KingGeorge Tupou V saying that he would be guided by hisprime minister in the exercising of his powers. Nonetheless, this does not preclude an independent royal decision to exercise a right of veto. In November 2011, the assembly adopted an Arms and Ammunitions (Amendment) Bill, which reduced the possible criminal sentences for the illicit possession of firearms. The bill was adopted by ten votes to eight. Two members of the assembly had recently been charged with the illicit possession of firearms. The Prime Minister,Lord Tuʻivakanō, voted in favour of the amendment. Members of the opposition denounced the bill and asked the King to veto it, which he did in December.[110][111][112][113]
That no person who has an office or place of profit under the King, or receives a pension from the Crown, shall be capable of serving as a member of the House of Commons
.svg)
{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link){{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)| Components |
|  | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parliamentary officers |
| ||||
| Members |
| ||||
| Parliaments | |||||
| Procedure | |||||
| Elections | |||||
| Locations | |||||
| Related | |||||
| Components |
|   | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parliamentary officers |
| ||||
| Members |
| ||||
| Procedure | |||||
| Elections | |||||
| Locations |
| ||||
| Miscellaneous | |||||