UK Monarchy

[Magda Hassan]

Secret royal veto powers over new laws to be exposed

Information commissioner orders release of guide to how Queen and Prince Charles must be consulted before laws are passed

• Robert Booth
  
• guardian.co.uk, Friday 31 August 2012 17.21 BST
  
• Jump to comments (631)
  

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 Guardianlast 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."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/31...rs-exposed

[Magda Hassan]

'Absolute secrecy' law for royals criticised by Information Commissioner

By Raymond BuchananBBC Scotland political correspondent


Plans by the Scottish government to keep any communication between ministers and the royal family secret are in direct conflict with the public interest, MSPs are to hear.
Scotland's Information Commissioner has described proposed reforms to freedom of information law as setting a "worrying precedent".
Rosemary Agnew is due to give evidence to Holyrood's Finance Committee.
It is looking at changes to the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Bill.
As part of the reforms, ministers want to give an "absolute" exemption to communications between the Scottish government and senior members of the Royal Family.
At the moment, information about the Royal Family can be published in Scotland if it passes a public interest test.
Ministers want to remove that test thereby banning any release and bringing the situation in Scotland into line with legislation in other parts of the UK.
The amendment would exempt communications with the monarch, the heir to the throne or a member of the royal household acting on their behalf.
'Restricting rights'But in her response to the proposed changes, Ms Agnew said: "The amendment will create a provision which requires absolute secrecy in relation to any aspect of communications with senior royals in all circumstances - regardless of how far removed the information is from the content of communications, or of the weight of the public interest in favour of release.

The amendment on correspondence on (or behalf of) Her Majesty provides for consistency of approach across the UK"

SpokesmanScottish government

"It is my considered view that it will... have the effect of unnecessarily restricting rights and create a worrying precedent with the introduction of a wide-ranging absolute exemption which sets aside the public interest.
"The amendment is therefore in direct conflict with the public interest."
Ms Agnew believes current protections for communications between ministers and the royals are sufficient.
A spokesman for the Scottish government said: "The amendment on correspondence on (or behalf of) Her Majesty provides for consistency of approach across the UK and in doing so ensures an appropriate level of protection for Scotland's current and future heads of state by safeguarding the well established conventions of confidentiality.
"Key elements of the Freedom of Information (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill include greater flexibility in reducing the lifespan of exemptions paving the way for more information to be made public earlier.
"The bill also makes the legislation stronger by making more effective the ability to bring a prosecution where requested information has been deliberately altered, destroyed or concealed."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-sc...s-19565565

[Magda Hassan]

Government fights release of royal veto guidelines

Cabinet Office challenges order to release guidance on when Prince Charles and Queen must be consulted over draft law


The government is fighting an information commissioner order requiring the release of secret documents that show how a little known power of royal veto over draft legislation operates.
The Cabinet Office has launched a legal challenge to a ruling last monthwhich warned that the government could be in contempt of court if it did not publish Whitehall guidance on a process which instructs civil servants to seek the approval of Prince Charles and the Queen over some new laws.
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 observers believe the power underpins the influence Prince Charles appears to wield in Whitehall over pet issues ranging from architecture to healthcare.
The latest effort to keep secret the application of the royal veto comes amid claims on Tuesday that the Queen had lobbied a Labour home secretary to secure the arrest of Abu Hamza al-Masri, the radical Islamist cleric who faces imminent extradition to the US.
The government and royal family are coming under growing pressure to reveal details about their interaction on policies.
Last week three judges in a freedom of information tribunal ordered the government to disclose copies of confidential letters that Charles wrote to ministers the black spider memos, so-called because of the prince's sprawling handwriting style. Now, unless they lodge an appeal at court, seven Whitehall departments will, within a month, have to hand over letters sent during a seven-month period during 2004-05.
Anti-monarchists have also launched a Westminster campaign to persuade parliamentarians to take action against royal political interference.
"Questions about Prince Charles's and the Queen's political interfering and the obligation on parliament to seek royal consent for legislation should cause concern on all sides in parliament," said Graham Smith, chief executive of Republic, the group advocating replacement of the British monarchy with an elected head of state. "The idea that the monarchy is politically neutral and harmless has been exposed as a hoax royal interference in British political life must be challenged."
The commissioner ruled that Whitehall guidance to assist those drafting new laws "in determining whether any part of a bill might require the consent of the Duchy of Cornwall" was not covered by legal professional privilege.
The government's move to challenge the ruling was confirmed in a letter last week from the information commissioner's office to John Kirkhope, the person who requested release of the documents.
Kirkhope had argued that it was "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".
In the past two parliamentary sessions Charles has been asked to consent to at least 12 draft bills, on various issues from wreck removals to co-operative societies. Between 2007 and 2009 he was consulted on bills relating to coroners, energy, planning, economic development and construction, marine and coastal access, and housing and regeneration.
In Charles's case, the little known power stems from his role as head of the £700m Duchy of Cornwall estate, which provides his £18m-a-year private income.
Kirkhope called the Cabinet Office's appeal outrageous. "All I have asked to see is a copy of the rules by which it is determined laws are made in this country. Why do parliamentarians tolerate a situation in which they introduce a bill in parliament and someone may come up to them and say you need the consent of the Duke of Cornwall? If they ask why, they'll be told the Cabinet Office guidance is secret and they are not allowed to see it."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/sep/25...guidelines

[Magda Hassan]

Royal 'consent' to laws revealed after FOI battle


Continue reading the main story
The information, which the government initially sought to stop being revealed, shows they were consulted on changes to higher education, ID cards and paternity pay among other issues.
Campaign group Republic said such a "royal veto" should be scrapped.
Buckingham Palace said the process was one of "established convention".
All legislation must be approved by the Head of State before it becomes law under a process known as Royal Assent - an important constitutional procedure but one largely now regarded as a formality.
But a newly published document reveals the Queen and Prince Charles have specifically been asked to approve a number of bills during their parliamentary passage - ones relating to royal powers and the interests of the Crown and the Duchy of Cornwall.
Continue reading the main storyWHEN CONSENT IS LIKELY TO BE NEEDED

• On issues relating to the royal prerogative
  
• On issues relating to the Crown's "hereditary revenues, personal property or personal interests"
  
• On issues affecting the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster
  

Guidance drawn up by parliamentary lawyers and setting out the "issues to be considered" regarding consent, was released after officials failed to prevent its release under Freedom of Information laws following a long-running battle.
It shows that the Queen was asked to approve changes to child maintenance in 2007, national insurance in 2004 and paternity pay in 2006 because they would apply to employees of the Royal Households and the "interests of the crown" were likely to be affected.
Legislation introducing tuition fees in 2004 required approval because of the Crown's historical role as a visitor of universities while a bill legalising civil partnerships needed consent because of a declaration on its validity which "would bind Her Majesty".
'Astonishing'The document also reveals that the Queen did not consent to a Private Members Bill in 1999 which proposed transferring historic formal powers to declare war - under the royal prerogative - from the Monarch to Parliament.

AnalysisPeter HuntRoyal correspondent
To critics of the monarchy, the publication of this once secret document is further proof of the power the institution exercises from behind the throne.
Bills as varied as the 1998 Data Protection Act and the 1996 Housing Act needed the approval of either the Queen or Prince Charles before becoming law.
Those seeking an elected head of state describe this as real power in the hands of the Windsors which is an affront to democracy.
Royal officials point out that no government bill has been objected to in modern times and the requesting and granting of consent is made public.
Even so, the process until now hasn't registered on the public consciousness.
Critics call it a royal veto which needs to be scrapped.
Supporters suggest it merely amounts to royal rubber stamping.
It is yet another reminder of the complex nature of the parliamentary process.

• Read more from Peter
  

Although no reason was given for this, the bill was not supported by the Labour government at the time and had no chance of becoming law anyway.
The document's publication follows a 15-month battle which saw the government initially refuse a FOI request. It was subsequently told to publish it by the Information Commissioner, and the Information Rights Tribunal later upheld the watchdog's ruling.
John Kirkhope, a solicitor and academic who made the initial FOI request as part of his research into the Duchy of Cornwall, said it was "astonishing" that ministers had tried to prevent its publication.
He said he had always believed that royal interventions in the legislative process were "rare".
"It is a small number of bills but I find it extraordinary that they have been consulted on things like National Insurance and children's rights," he said. "There are some real oddities there."
'Public record'Republic, which campaigns for an elected head of state, called for "full disclosure" over the degree of royal influence over laws.
"The royal veto is a serious affront to our democracy," said the organisation's spokesman Graham Smith.
"This is clearly more than a formality. It is hard to believe the palace's claim that consent is only withheld on the instruction of ministers... even the threat of withholding consent could be enough for legislation to be substantially altered - or dropped."
The Cabinet Office said Parliament was required to seek the consent of the Queen and the Prince of Wales for certain bills and consent had only ever been refused on ministers' advice and never for a government bill.
Officials said they had decided to publish the guidance as part of the government's "drive for greater transparency".
In a statement, Buckingham Palace 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."
A spokesman for the Prince of Wales added: "Every instance of the prince's consent having been sought and given to legislation is a matter of public record."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21024828

[Magda Hassan]

Prince Charles letters: attorney general acted unlawfully, say senior judges

Ruling in the court of appeal backs Guardian campaign to have letters to ministers released under freedom of information law

• Rob Evans
  
  
• theguardian.com, Wednesday 12 March 2014 21.38 AEST
  
• Jump to comments (157)
  

Dominic Grieve: he argued the letters would compromise the prince, but judges said he did not have reasonable grounds. Photograph: Facundo Arrizabalaga/EPA

Three senior judges have ruled that Dominic Grieve, the attorney general, acted unlawfully when he blocked the publication of letters written by Prince Charles to government ministers.
The ruling, led by Lord Dyson, the head of the civil judiciary in England and Wales, paves the way for the release of the letters which reveal how the prince lobbied government ministers to change official policies.
Grieve had refused access to the letters, arguing that they could cause constitutional problems. He had said their contents could "seriously damage" the prince's ability to perform his duties when he became king because they could cast doubt on his political neutrality.
On Wednesday, Dyson and two colleagues in the appeal court quashed a veto that Grieve had used to override an independent tribunal. The freedom of information tribunal had previously ruled against the government and had ordered that the letters should be disclosed because the public had a right to see how the heir to the throne had sought to influence government.
Under freedom of information legislation, the Guardian has for nine years sought to view the letters that Grieve says contain the prince's "most deeply held personal views and beliefs".
On Wednesday Dyson said the attorney-general had been given permission to appeal the ruling at the supreme court.
He also ordered the attorney general to pay the Guardian's legal costs, amounting to £96,000.
Dyson, the master of the rolls, said Grieve "did not have reasonable grounds" for issuing the veto "merely because he disagrees with the decision" of the tribunal.
Grieve "could point to no error of law or fact in the [tribunal's] decision, and the government departments concerned did not even seek permission to appeal it", he added.
A month after the tribunal's decision in 2012, Grieve, with the support of the cabinet, had used the veto because he said the public could interpret the letters sent to ministers in the last Labour government as showing Charles to be "disagreeing with government policy".
Grieve had said that a cornerstone of the British constitution was that the monarch could not be seen to be favouring one political party over another. But he had said that any perception that Charles had disagreed with Tony Blair's government "would be seriously damaging to his role as future monarch because, if he forfeits his position of political neutrality as heir to the throne, he cannot easily recover it when he is king".
The 27 pieces of correspondence between Charles and ministers in seven government departments between September 2004 and April 2005 "are in many cases particularly frank", according to Grieve.
In Wednesday's court of appeal judgment, Dyson, along with Lord Justices Richards and Pitchford, said Grieve "had no good reason for overriding the meticulous decision" of the tribunal, which examined evidence from constitutional experts and arguments from barristers for the government and the Guardian.
Dyson called the verdict from the tribunal which was chaired by a high court judge "an impressive piece of work". Dyson also ruled that the veto was unlawful under European commission law.
The prince has for many years been criticised for apparently exploiting his unelected position to promote his views and persuade ministers to change official policies through private letters, nicknamed "black-spider memos" because of his scrawled handwriting.
The freedom of information tribunal heard that he had been writing to ministers as long ago as 1969, when he expressed concern to the then prime minister, Harold Wilson, about the fate of Atlantic salmon.
The tribunal, in its decision in September 2012, had come out in favour of publishing the letters, saying: "The essential reason is that it will generally be in the overall public interest for there to be transparency as to how and when Prince Charles seeks to influence government."
The letters concerned involve ministers in the Cabinet Office and the departments responsible for business, health, schools, environment, culture and Northern Ireland.
The government has argued that even the dates on which the letters were sent, and which ministers received them, should be kept secret.
The government has also delayed disclosing the amount of money it has spent on barristers and lawyers to resist the disclosure of the letters in court hearings and the freedom of information tribunal. That piece of information has also been requested by the Guardian.
A Guardian News and Media spokesperson said: "The public has a right to know if the heir to the throne is advocating policy or promoting causes to government ministers.
"We welcome today's appeal court judgment finding that it was wrong to block the release of the letters. We hope the attorney general will recognise he has reached the end of the legal road and that government departments will now publish the correspondence so that the public can judge for themselves."
A spokesman for the attorney general said: "We are very disappointed by the decision of the court. We will be pursuing an appeal to the supreme court in order to protect the important principles which are at stake in this case."

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/...CMP=twt_gu

[David Guyatt]

Secret royal veto powers over new laws to be exposed

Information commissioner orders release of guide to how Queen and Prince Charles must be consulted before laws are passed

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.

Not the Monar-chy then, but the Money-key...

[David Guyatt]

duplicate post deleted.