Over 1,000 legal guidelines wanted Her Majesty’s consent as results of archaic constitutional rule

Image via Wikimedia Commons

Through the course of her reign, HRH Queen Elizabeth II has been given the ability of consent over 1,000 legal guidelines, it emerged this week.

An archaic constitutional rule has meant that parliament has referred draft payments masking all types of areas corresponding to charity regulation, tenancy regulation or pensions regulation, to the Queen who then gave her consent to them.

To not be confused with the ‘Royal Assent’ that every one payments get earlier than they grow to be regulation, a purely rubber stamping train (however maybe additionally in want of reform?), the Queen’s consent is an influence that has been in place because the 1700s and pertains to particular payments that may affect on her personal pursuits.

The Guardian published a database of the laws which were topic to the weird consent process. They cowl a really wide selection of topic areas (together with knowledge safety– fortunate her…).

There are additionally studies that the Queen was allegedly capable of foyer behind the scenes for modifications in just a few of the payments that parliament had despatched to her: probably the most startling instance is proof that seems to counsel that the Queen used the process to make modifications to a 1970s regulation in an effort to forestall a few of her personal wealth changing into public data.

The extent to which the monarch might — and might — foyer for substantive modifications stays unclear.

Chatting with Authorized Cheek, Paul Evans, a member of College Faculty, London’s Structure Unit, and author of a report on constitutional vetoes on the executive, says:

“The Queen’s Consent shouldn’t be a veto: it might not be potential for her to really forestall laws coming in however the Guardian investigation does seem to point out that, on sure events, there could have been some affect. This can be very arduous to say how deep that affect goes. Wouldn’t it be any roughly than the foremost occasion donors that foyer ministers?”

So far, Buckingham Palace has sought to downplay the position of the Queen’s consent, stating that the position of the sovereign is “purely formal”, and that “consent is at all times granted by the monarch the place requested by the federal government”. Ditto the Cupboard Workplace referring to the “longstanding conference”.

The latest comments from across Legal Cheek

Others are calling for a change to this process. Senior constitutional regulation lecturer on the College of Liverpool, Adam Tucker, writing within the Guardian, argued that: “there isn’t a place for this course of within the working of a 21st century democracy.”

The Queen’s Consent was reviewed in 2013 by the Home of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and, sarcastically, a bill was put forward to abolish the power however, in the long run, such motion was thought of pointless as a result of, says Evans: “Parliament’s most senior officers advised the committee that it might simply drop the consent at any time and it was parliament that selected to place this requirement for consent in place and so might merely change its thoughts”.

One final result of the 2013 examination of the Queen’s Consent is that there have been slight modifications to the ability, explains Evans. Previous to that date, “if a sovereign’s pursuits or prerogatives went to the center of a invoice, there might, doubtlessly, be a block on the invoice even being debated so that you just wouldn’t know if the Queen had expressed any views on it. However since then, the ability solely turns into ‘stay’ instantly earlier than the third studying: withholding consent at that stage could be a really public motion.”

David Allen Inexperienced, solicitor and well-known authorized commentator, is arguing for the ability to be abolished. He had this to say:

“There isn’t any good cause why the pinnacle of any state ought to have the privilege of the safety and promotion of their personal pursuits by their personal lawyer as a proper a part of the law-making course of.”

As Evans places it: “If the method of in search of Queen’s consent regarding her personal pursuits (versus her royal prerogatives which is a completely separate subject and, I might argue, wants extra pressing consideration) gives the look of undue affect — and that’s not good for the Royal Household’s public picture — why not eliminate it altogether? Parliament ought to end what it began again in 2013.”

It seems the battle for management of parliament continues: final yr it was whether or not or not the federal government might prorogue parliament, this time it’s the Queen’s powers over parliament. No matter subsequent?

Sign up to the Legal Cheek Newsletter