WE ARE NOT CONTENT TO SIGN THIS BILL INTO LAW. IT MIGHT COST US A BOB OR TWO.

There are times when I have to admit to shaking myself in wonderment at some of the ancient laws still on statute books or rights and customs observed in Westminster in the law making process that still holds sway over Scotland.

I suppose we are reminded of this periodically when something bizarre happens... Tony B£air, instead of resigning from his seat, takes the Chiltern Hundreds, or an MP wishing to stop a debate dons a top hat and cries “I spy stangers”.

I was reminded again of this when the topic of Magna Carta, signed in Latin in 1215 was raised on the David Letterman show on tv. (You’d have thought an English public school boy would have been able to translate Magna Carta into English, but apparently Cameron couldn’t. Eton, it seems, just isn’t what it used to be.) Anyway Magna Carta is what it used to be, as its 1297 version, with the title (originally in Latin) "The Great Charter of the Liberties of England, and of the Liberties of the Forest," is still on the statute book of England and Wales.

Most of these things are a lightly amusing, a bit time wasting, but don't really do any great harm. 

However, another anachronism is the little known powers remaining to the Queen and the Duke of Cornwall, to scrutinise laws that may affect them personally, to have proposed laws altered, and for this to be kept secret from the public. That is slightly more serious, and yet another chip in the veneer of the so called democracy that we live in.

Now the Cabinet Office has been ordered, by the DeputyCommissioner for Information, to release details of how this system works as laid out in a government manual “The Crown and the Duchy of Cornwall”.

This is no ancient and no longer used right and privilege. In the last two years 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. The Queen has had changes made to law concerning the employment of apprentices, on the basis that it would affect her as an employer.

The government has yet to decide whether to appeal the decision of the Information Commission. If it does, it is likely that the matter will go to the High Court.

Can it possibly be right that two individuals should have powers to alter Bills that may impact on millions of others every bit as much as it impacts on them, just because of an accident of birth?

When I was sorting out the link for this article, I noticed the following comment on the Guardian story:

Good news. Hopefully this will shed light on the nonsense in the Scottish Parliament whereby no Bill can be debated at Stage 3 unless the Queen has consented to place her prerogative and interests at disposal of Parliament. As, for example, in relation to the Alcohol (Minimum Pricing) Scotland Bill.

Any ideas what this is about?

CHARLES WIELDS POWER OVER A WIDE RANGE OF MATTERS

Lithograph of the Black Prince (2nd left)

Under an ancient law dating from 1337 which has never been revoked, The Duke of Cornwall has the right to veto legislation of the Westminster parliament if it affects his private interests.


Breathtaking, isn't it?


Nonetheless, ministers have been forced to seek the duke's permission on matters as far ranging as road safety, gambling, the Olympics, co-operative societies, economic development, housing, regeneration, energy and planning amongst others. 


Whilst his mother technically has the right to interfere by "advising, encouraging and warning" on matters affecting her subjects, and a veto over matters that affect the royal family, it seems that  HRH, has a secret right to demand changes to Bills if they get in the way of his private interests.


The information came to light as the result of a Freedom of Information demand by the Guardian. The government recently exempted official correspondence between ministers and the Queen, Charles and William, from FoI legislation (meaning that Charles could continue to summons ministers to discuss legislation without it becoming embarrassing). However, with their customary panache from messing up, clearly no one thought to include this "right" in that  cover-up legislation, which, ironically, was unobtrusively tacked on to a Bill on openness in government!!!! 

Coinage of Edward, the Black Prince

The legislation originates from Edward III  when he created his son, the Black Prince, Duke of Cornwall and has been passed down since that time, seemingly without alteration. The Duchy provides Charles with £18 million a year of private income, quite separate from the money given to him by the state for royal duties and maintaining his wife.


The revelations have caused both MPs and Peers (although why the peers, I'm not sure) to protest and demand publication of details about how these powers have been used to interfere in legislation. Both the government and Charles' office is refusing to give any details of any changes that he has demanded. The Liberal MP for St Ives in Kernow, said that he was astonished to hear that Charles has a veto over government business, and a minister Lord Berkeley who was recently obliged to ask permission over a marine navigation bill, wondered why other landowners who would be affected by it should not have an equal say.


Charles has been accused on many occasions of poking his nose into government and meddling in the affairs of ministers. While some may think that a disastrously out of touch Cabinet might benefit from a little steering in the direction of the needs of the people, it's surely the constituency MPs who are supposed to do that. Not someone whose reality is so far removed from Mr Average as to be on a different planet and in a different time zone.