Court order
reveals how approval of Queen and Prince Charles is sought on range of bills
The Guardian, Robert Booth, Monday 14 January 2013
 |
| The Queen was asked for consent on a range of bills, including those affecting her estates. There is growing concern in parliament at a lack of transparency over the royals’ role in lawmaking. Photograph: Sergeant Dan Harmer |
The extent
of the Queen and Prince Charles's secretive power of veto over new laws has
been exposed after Downing Street lost its battle to keep information about its
application secret.
Whitehall papers prepared by Cabinet Office lawyers show that overall at least 39 bills
have been subject to the most senior royals' little-known power to consent to
or block new laws. They also reveal the power has been used to torpedo proposed
legislation relating to decisions about the country going to war.
The
internal Whitehall pamphlet was only released following a court order and shows
ministers and civil servants are obliged to consult the Queen and Prince
Charles in greater detail and over more areas of legislation than was
previously understood.
New laws
required to receive the seal of approval from the Queen or Prince Charles cover
issues from higher education and paternity pay to identity cards and child
maintenance.
In one
instance the Queen completely vetoed the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in
1999, a private member's bill that sought to transfer the power to authorise
military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to parliament.
She was
even asked to consent to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 because it contained a
declaration about the validity of a civil partnership that would bind her.
In the
pamphlet, the Parliamentary Counsel warns civil servants that if consent is not
forthcoming there is a risk "a major plank of the bill must be
removed".
"This
is opening the eyes of those who believe the Queen only has a ceremonial
role," said Andrew George, Liberal Democrat MP for St Ives, which includes
land owned by the Duchy of Cornwall, the Prince of Wales' hereditary estate.
"It
shows the royals are playing an active role in the democratic process and we
need greater transparency in parliament so we can be fully appraised of whether
these powers of influence and veto are really appropriate. At any stage this
issue could come up and surprise us and we could find parliament is less
powerful than we thought it was."
The veto
has been used by Charles on more than a dozen occasions and has been described
by constitutional lawyers as a royal "nuclear deterrent" that may
help explain why ministers appear to pay close attention to the views of senior
royals.
The
guidance also warns civil servants that obtaining consent can cause delays to
legislation and reveals that even amendments may need to be run past the royals
for further consent.
"There
has been an implication that these prerogative powers are quaint and sweet but
actually there is real influence and real power, albeit unaccountable,"
said John Kirkhope, the legal scholar who fought the freedom of information
case to access the papers.
The release
of the papers comes amid growing concern in parliament at a lack of
transparency over the royals' role in lawmaking. George has set down a series
of questions to ministers asking for a full list of bills that have been
consented by the Queen and Prince Charles and have been vetoed or amended.
The
guidance states that the Queen's consent is likely to be needed for laws
affecting hereditary revenues, personal property or personal interests of the
Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster or the Duchy of Cornwall.
Consent is
also needed if it affects the Duchy of Cornwall. These guidelines effectively
mean the Queen and Charles both have power over laws affecting their sources of
private income.
The Queen
uses revenues from the Duchy of Lancaster's 19,000 hectares of land and 10
castles to pay for the upkeep of her private homes at Sandringham and Balmoral,
while the prince earns £18m-a-year from the Duchy of Cornwall.
A
Buckingham Palace spokeswoman said: "It is a long established convention
that the Queen is asked by parliament to provide consent to those bills which
parliament has decided would affect crown interests. The sovereign has not
refused to consent to any bill affecting crown interests unless advised to do
so by ministers."
A spokesman
for Prince Charles said: "In modern times, the prince of Wales has never
refused to consent to any bill affecting Duchy of Cornwall interests, unless
advised to do so by ministers. Every instance of the prince's consent having
been sought and given to legislation is a matter of public record."
Graham
Smith, director of Republic, the campaign for an elected head of state, has
also called for full disclosure of the details of the occasions when royal
consent has been refused.
"The
suggestion in these documents that the Queen withheld consent for a private
member's bill on such an important issue as going to war beggars belief,"
he said. "We need to know whether laws have been changed as the result of
a private threat to withhold that consent."
The Cabinet
Office fought against the publication of the 30-page internal guidance in a
15-month freedom of information dispute. It refused a request to release the
papers from Kirkhope, a notary public who wanted to use them in his graduate
studies at Plymouth University.
It was
ordered to do so by the Information Commissioner. The Cabinet Office then
appealed that decision in the Information Tribunal but lost.
Related Articles:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.