The Queen, Prince Charles vetted 1,062 laws before passage in parliament: The Guardian
More than 1,000 U.K. laws were secretly vetted by the Queen or Prince Charles before they were approved by the U.K. members of the parliament, The Guardian reports.
© Provided by National Post Britain's Queen Elizabeth II (L) sits with Britain's Prince Charles, Prince of Wales (R) on the Sovereign's throne ahead of delivering the Queen's Speech at the State Opening of Parliament in the Houses of Parliament in London on October 14, 2019.In some cases, the Queen used her powers to lobby for changes to draft laws affecting her own personal interests, the report added, such as persuading government ministers to change a 1970s transparency law in order to hide her private wealth from the public.
The Guardian found that 1,062 laws ranging from matters of justice, food policy and social security to smaller rules on road safety and hovercraft, as part of an investigation into the powers of the Queen’s consent — an old parliamentary formality whereby the Queen is privately told of draft parliamentary bills affecting the Crown’s interests and asked for consent to debate them.
Her refusal to give consent can deny the parliament the ability to debate the law in question.
The procedure had been based on a long-standing assumption that the Queen does not interfere with parliament proceedings. However documents from the U.K. National Archives revealed the the Queen has, in several instances, exercised her powers within the procedure to a larger extent than publicly known.
The Queen’s representatives would not tell The Guardian how often she exercised her right to consent to ask for alterations to legislation since ascending the throne in 1952. Multiple statements from Buckingham Palace to the Guardian have emphasized that the role of sovereign in giving consent is a “longstanding convention and requirement of the parliamentary process.”
“Consent is routinely sought by the government and agreed by the monarch as a matter of course,” the statement reads.
“Queen’s consent is a parliamentary process, with the role of sovereign purely formal. Consent is always granted by the monarch where requested by government. Any assertion that the sovereign has blocked legislation is simply incorrect,” it adds.
In one instance, the Queen initially did not immediately give her consent to a formal request in 1982 to debate a parliamentary bill on the preservation of Britain’s national monuments. The bill included a proposal to create an organization to preserve England’s ancient monuments and historic buildings. The Queen’s private secretary objected to certain clauses of the bill, which would allow the organization to subsume an existing royal commission. Members of the parliament did not receive consent until six months later. The royal commission in turn, survived for another 17 years.
Video: Enforcement agencies responsible for carrying out public health orders, not government officials: Kenney (Global News)
Pause
Current Time 0:03
/
Duration 1:22
Loaded: 21.65%
Unmute
0
HQ
CaptionsFullscreen
Enforcement agencies responsible for carrying out public health orders, not government officials: Kenney
Click to expand
Another instance in 1986 saw the monarch object to an update in road safety legislation that would apply to all roads to which the public had access, including the crown estates. When the Queen gave her consent, it was on the condition that the clause did not include her estates and that “objections which … have been raised by the crown estate and the duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall are satisfactorily resolved.”
Some of the bills reviewed by the Queen also related to wealth or taxation. According to The Guardian, members of the Windsor family are allowed to keep their will sealed from the public, unlike anyone else in Britain. No one has publicly confirmed how rich the family is, although some estimates say they hold in excess of hundreds of millions of pounds.
The government, The Guardian reported, exempted the Queen from a 2006 act to prevent the mistreatment of animals, stopping inspectors from entering her private estates.
Certain bills vetted by the Queen such as a 1986 bill on salmon, and a 2019 parking (code of practice) bill did not have much relevance to the monarchy’s interests, which raised questions by experts on why the Royal members were asked to review them.
Most Canadians think the royals aren't relevant anymore, some willing to leave monarchy, poll finds
Prince Philip won't be charged in car crash, but he has handed in his keys for good
“A lot of these bills are not distinctively about the crown, or mainly about the crown, or obviously about the crown in any way,” Dr. Adam Tucker, a U.K. constitutional law specialist told The Guardian. “And yet they obviously still have some content which drags them into the process,” he said.
“Seeing the sheer range, in this relentless list form, really drives home the sheer breadth of things that the procedure captures,” he added.
The Queen also reviewed and gave consent to the U.K. coronavirus act in March 2020.
A 2013 bill published in The Guardian’s database included a proposal to abolish “the mechanism of the Queen and prince’s consent.” The Queen and Prince Charles consented to the bill. However, Parliament did not ultimately pass the bill, for unclear reasons.
Robert Finch, a spokesperson for the Monarchist League of Canada, told The National Post that the investigation is “blowing things way out of proportion.”
He acknowledged that he has only read “snippets” of the investigation so far. “But from what I gather, the power of consent is always there. Any laws that have passed, she does have to consent to them, sometimes as a courtesy,” he said.
“The queen is not sitting in the palace going through the legislation and changing (them), that’s not happening,” he added. “Her position is to reign, not rule. Politicians make all the decisions, she simply gives the authority for the legislation.”
The Guardian found that 1,062 laws ranging from matters of justice, food policy and social security to smaller rules on road safety and hovercraft, as part of an investigation into the powers of the Queen’s consent — an old parliamentary formality whereby the Queen is privately told of draft parliamentary bills affecting the Crown’s interests and asked for consent to debate them.
Her refusal to give consent can deny the parliament the ability to debate the law in question.
The procedure had been based on a long-standing assumption that the Queen does not interfere with parliament proceedings. However documents from the U.K. National Archives revealed the the Queen has, in several instances, exercised her powers within the procedure to a larger extent than publicly known.
The Queen’s representatives would not tell The Guardian how often she exercised her right to consent to ask for alterations to legislation since ascending the throne in 1952. Multiple statements from Buckingham Palace to the Guardian have emphasized that the role of sovereign in giving consent is a “longstanding convention and requirement of the parliamentary process.”
“Consent is routinely sought by the government and agreed by the monarch as a matter of course,” the statement reads.
“Queen’s consent is a parliamentary process, with the role of sovereign purely formal. Consent is always granted by the monarch where requested by government. Any assertion that the sovereign has blocked legislation is simply incorrect,” it adds.
In one instance, the Queen initially did not immediately give her consent to a formal request in 1982 to debate a parliamentary bill on the preservation of Britain’s national monuments. The bill included a proposal to create an organization to preserve England’s ancient monuments and historic buildings. The Queen’s private secretary objected to certain clauses of the bill, which would allow the organization to subsume an existing royal commission. Members of the parliament did not receive consent until six months later. The royal commission in turn, survived for another 17 years.
Video: Enforcement agencies responsible for carrying out public health orders, not government officials: Kenney (Global News)
Pause
Current Time 0:03
/
Duration 1:22
Loaded: 21.65%
Unmute
0
HQ
CaptionsFullscreen
Enforcement agencies responsible for carrying out public health orders, not government officials: Kenney
Click to expand
Another instance in 1986 saw the monarch object to an update in road safety legislation that would apply to all roads to which the public had access, including the crown estates. When the Queen gave her consent, it was on the condition that the clause did not include her estates and that “objections which … have been raised by the crown estate and the duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall are satisfactorily resolved.”
Some of the bills reviewed by the Queen also related to wealth or taxation. According to The Guardian, members of the Windsor family are allowed to keep their will sealed from the public, unlike anyone else in Britain. No one has publicly confirmed how rich the family is, although some estimates say they hold in excess of hundreds of millions of pounds.
The government, The Guardian reported, exempted the Queen from a 2006 act to prevent the mistreatment of animals, stopping inspectors from entering her private estates.
Certain bills vetted by the Queen such as a 1986 bill on salmon, and a 2019 parking (code of practice) bill did not have much relevance to the monarchy’s interests, which raised questions by experts on why the Royal members were asked to review them.
Most Canadians think the royals aren't relevant anymore, some willing to leave monarchy, poll finds
Prince Philip won't be charged in car crash, but he has handed in his keys for good
“A lot of these bills are not distinctively about the crown, or mainly about the crown, or obviously about the crown in any way,” Dr. Adam Tucker, a U.K. constitutional law specialist told The Guardian. “And yet they obviously still have some content which drags them into the process,” he said.
“Seeing the sheer range, in this relentless list form, really drives home the sheer breadth of things that the procedure captures,” he added.
The Queen also reviewed and gave consent to the U.K. coronavirus act in March 2020.
A 2013 bill published in The Guardian’s database included a proposal to abolish “the mechanism of the Queen and prince’s consent.” The Queen and Prince Charles consented to the bill. However, Parliament did not ultimately pass the bill, for unclear reasons.
Robert Finch, a spokesperson for the Monarchist League of Canada, told The National Post that the investigation is “blowing things way out of proportion.”
He acknowledged that he has only read “snippets” of the investigation so far. “But from what I gather, the power of consent is always there. Any laws that have passed, she does have to consent to them, sometimes as a courtesy,” he said.
“The queen is not sitting in the palace going through the legislation and changing (them), that’s not happening,” he added. “Her position is to reign, not rule. Politicians make all the decisions, she simply gives the authority for the legislation.”
No comments:
Post a Comment