guardian.co.uk,
Robert Booth, Friday 31 August 2012
 |
Prince Charles views work on a property bought by the Duchy of Cornwall
which, along with the Queen, must be consulted before laws are passed to
ensure they don’t adversely affect their private interests. Photograph: Tim
Graham/Getty Images
|
A
little-known power enjoyed by the Queen and Prince of Wales to alter new laws
is due to be exposed after the government lost a legal battle to keep details
of its application private.
The
information commissioner has ruled that the Cabinet Office must publish an
internal Whitehall guide to the way the senior royals are consulted before
legislation is introduced to ensure it does not harm their private interests.
The
application of the controversial veto was revealed by the Guardian last year
and has been described by constitutional lawyers as "a royal nuclear
deterrent". Some believe it may underpin the influence Prince Charles
appears to wield in Whitehall over pet issues ranging from architecture to
healthcare.
A judgment issued last week by the deputy information commissioner, Graham Smith, means
the Cabinet Office has until 25 September to release the confidential internal
manual. It details how the consent of "The Crown and The Duchy of
Cornwall" is obtained before bills are passed into law and what criteria
ministers apply before asking the royals to amend draft laws. If it fails to do
so it could face high court action.
In the past
two parliamentary sessions Charles has been asked to consent to at least 12
draft bills on everything from wreck removals to co-operative societies.
Between 2007 and 2009 he was consulted on bills relating to coroners, economic
development and construction, marine and coastal access, housing and
regeneration, energy and planning. In Charles's case, the little-known power
stems from his role as the head of the £700m Duchy of Cornwall estate, which
provides his £17m-a-year private income.
The
government battled to keep the manual secret, claiming publication would breach
legal professional privilege, and a spokeswoman for the Cabinet Office said it
was still deciding whether to challenge the ruling at the information tribunal.
Lord
Berkeley, a Labour peer who was told to seek Charles's consent on a marine
navigation bill, said the commissioner's decision was "absolutely
right". He said publication could shed light on a little-known procedure
that allows the prince and the Queen "to fiddle around with bills to make
sure they don't affect their private interests".
"People
will start thinking, what the hell is going on?" he said. "We are in
the 21st century, not the 18th century and it is crazy to think they are even
trying to do this. The royal family should give up this special privilege and
we should all obey the law of the land. Just because they have private estates,
private incomes and land from several centuries ago doesn't mean they should
have the right to interfere."
The latest
crack in the edifice of secrecy around Charles's influence on public life came
after a legal scholar, John Kirkhope, asked for Whitehall's internal manuals on
consulting the royals. He said it was "clearly in the public interest that
citizens understand how laws are made and applied as well as the circumstances
in which the Duchy of Cornwall is consulted".
Kirkhope
was researching a university thesis about the legal status of the duchy and
wanted to know how ministers decided whether new laws affected the
"hereditary revenues, personal property of the Duke [Charles] or other
interests".
The Duchy
of Cornwall runs farms and industrial property, builds houses and acts as a
landlord as well as taking responsibility for large areas of the natural
environment in south-west England. Its interests often overlap with Charles's
own in areas such as town planning where past interventions in public debate
have seen the prince accused of abusing his influence to distort the democratic
process.
In 2009 Charles caused a storm when he stepped into the public planning debate for the
Chelsea Barracks housing development designed by Richard Rogers. He privately
complained to the site's owner, the prime minister of Qatar, that the design
was "a gigantic experiment with the very soul of our capital city".
Rogers was promptly sacked and the scheme redrawn in line with the prince's
tastes.
Kirkhope
said evidence he had gathered suggested the process of seeking royal consent
for draft bills was not a mere formality. "The correspondence indicates
that the effects of the bills are explained to the royal household, including
the Duchy of Cornwall, discussions ensue and if necessary changes are made to
proposed legislation," he said. "Departments of state have fought to
avoid releasing correspondence which gives some hint of how the process works
and the Cabinet Office has resisted releasing details of the guidance which
determines whether the prince as Duke of Cornwall is consulted in the first
place.
"As a
citizen of this country I have a proper interest in ensuring the process by
which laws are made should be transparent and that those who are given special
privileges should be accountable. That is demonstrably not the case with regard
to the Duchy of Cornwall."
Earlier in
August Kirkhope forced the government to release edited emails showing how the
Ministry of Justice consulted Buckingham Palace in 2008 and 2009 over the
detail of the apprenticeships bill and how it would affect the Queen "in
her personal capacity". As an employer of 1,200 staff the royal household
stood to be affected, along with thousands of other employers. The civil
servants wanted to know "Her Majesty's intentions in relation to the
bill" before its second reading in the House of Commons.
One email
refers to a note from the Queen's solicitors, Farrer and Co, "setting out
his instructions in relation to the application of the apprenticeships bill to
Her Majesty in her personal capacity".
The
official states: "I understand from our discussion today that it might not
be possible for what they want to happen without there being express provision
in the bill".
It echoes
correspondence released last year in which a minister wrote to the prince's
office requesting his consent to a new planning bill because it was
"capable of applying to ... [the] Prince of Wales' private
interests".
Buckingham
Palace and Clarence House released a joint statement in response to the
information commissioner's ruling. "The royal household understands that
the Cabinet Office is considering the information commissioner's decision and
next step," it said. "It would not be a matter for the royal
household to challenge any decision."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.