Pamphlet on Royal consent legislation published
Tuesday 15 January 2013
Related articles
Official legal advice about when Royal consent is required for legislation to proceed has been published after a long-running battle by the Cabinet Office to keep it under wraps.
The previously confidential 23-page pamphlet by Government lawyers sets out the circumstances in which a bill needs the approval of the Queen or the Prince of Wales.
It says the consent needs to be considered where legislation affects the Royal prerogative or hereditary revenues, the Duchies of Lancaster or Cornwall and personal property or interests of the Crown.
The document cites numerous examples in which the Queen's or Prince's consent was required for Parliament to debate a bill - a process distinct from Royal Assent, which is never refused once legislation has completed its passage through the two Houses.
They include the bills that led to the Civil Partnership Act 2004, the Pensions Acts of 2004, 2007, 2008 and 2011, and the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
Other legislation requiring the Queen's or Prince's consent has covered child maintenance, Tony Blair's plans for identity cards and higher education.
In at least three cases since 1990 - none mentioned in the pamphlet - Queen's consent has not been granted, preventing legislation from going any further.
That was the case with Labour MP Tam Dalyell's Military Action Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill in 1999, which would have transferred from the Queen to Parliament the power to authorise military strikes, the Palace of Westminster (Removal of Crown Immunity) Bill in 1998 and the Reform of the House of Lords Bill in 1990.
The document, drawn up by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel drawing on Erskine May, points out: "If Queen's or Prince's consent is not signified, the question on the relevant stage of the bill cannot be put."
Buckingham Palace said consent was only refused on the advice of ministers.
The pamphlet was initially requested for release under the Freedom of Information Act by PhD student John Kirkhope in August 2011, but the Cabinet Office objected on the grounds that it was covered by legal privilege.
Despite being overruled by the Information Commissioner Christopher Graham, the Cabinet Office refused to publish the document until it was taken to an Information Tribunal by Mr Kirkhope.
Anti-monarchy campaign group Republic called for the requirement for royal consent to be scrapped.
Chief executive Graham Smith said: "The royal veto is a serious affront to our democracy. It is extraordinary that in this day and age our elected politicians have to ask the permission of the Queen and her eldest son before they can pass new laws."
He said that the requirement for consent was "real power in the hands of the royals" and called for a list of occasions on which laws have been amended or dropped as a result.
"Nothing short of full disclosure is now required so MPs can get on with scrapping this requirement for royal consent," he said.
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."
PA
-
Notes from a small island: Is Sealand an independent 'micronation' or an illegal fortress?
-
You thought Ryanair's attendants had it bad? Wait 'til you hear about their pilots
-
World news in pictures
-
'Swivel-gate': David Cameron at war with press over 'swivel-eyed loons' slur
-
Revealed: Eerie new images show forgotten French apartment that was abandoned at the outbreak of World War II and left untouched for 70 years
- 1 Heading for America? Prepare for the longest US immigration queues ever
- 2 Notes from a small island: Is Sealand an independent 'micronation' or an illegal fortress?
- 3 You thought Ryanair's attendants had it bad? Wait 'til you hear about their pilots
- 4 'Swivel-gate': David Cameron at war with press over 'swivel-eyed loons' slur
- 5 It’s official: thanks to Stephen Hawking's Israel boycott, anti-Semitism is no more
Get your summer started with British Military Fitness
BMF is the UK’s biggest and best loved outdoor fitness classes
Visit York
Find out what The Independent's resident travel expert has to say about one of the most beautiful small cities in the world
Enter the latest Independent competitions
Win anything from gadgets to five-star holidays on our competitions and offers page.
Business videos from commercial thought leaders
Watch the best in the business world give their insights into the world of business.
Independent Dating
iJobs General
Teaching Programme Officer with Qualified Teacher Status
£28000 - £31500 per annum + benefits: Randstad Education Newcastle: Permanent ...
SAP FI-CA Consultant - up to £58k
£50000 - £58000 per annum + Benefits and Bonus: Progressive Recruitment: SAP F...
PHP/ Drupal Developer - £35k - WC
£30000 - £40000 per annum + BENS: Progressive Recruitment: Drupal Developer A ...
C# WEB DEVELOPER
£45000 - £50000 per annum + bens: Progressive Recruitment: C# WEB DEVELOPER Le...
Day In a Page
The price of pacifism
Jason Isaacs: Groupies, theatre bores and James Bond
Sealand: 'Micronation' or illegal fortress?
Legend of James Hunt has set Hollywood hearts racing
Macklemore: 'I don't have moderation'
Don't be shy: Bill Granger's Sri Lankan recipes
Gordon Ramsay's worst nightmare: A restaurant he cannot save







Comments