Royal Consent Is 'Arcane' and Could be Abolished, MPs Say

[cinrit]

The role of the Queen and Prince of Wales in signing off new laws is "arcane and complex" and could be abolished, MPs have said.

The Commons' Political and Constitutional Reform committee warned that the process is "fuelling speculation" that the monarchy has an "undue influence".

The MPs said there is "no evidence" that the law has been changed because of the process of obtaining royal consent, which they describe as a "matter of courtesy".

However, they add that it is open to question whether this represents a "compelling justification" for maintaining the tradition.

More: Royal consent is 'arcane' and could be abolished, MPs say - Telegraph

Cindy

[PrincessOfPeace]

A Cabinet Office spokesman said: "The Government welcomes the report by the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee on the role of Queen's and Prince's Consent in the legislative process.

"We will carefully consider the Committee's conclusions and recommendations and set out the government's response in due course."

Meaning the report is a load of rubbish and thanks but no thanks.  :happy15:

[Orchid]

I suppose it depends how one interprets the comment.  Personally, I've taken the statements to "carefully consider" and "welcomes the report" on face value: not that any political statements should be extended the benefit of the doubt.

It says: "The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy. The Queen has the right to be consulted, to advise and to warn. But beyond that she should have no role in the legislative process.

"Its existence could be regarded as a matter of courtesy between the three parts of Parliament. Whether this is a compelling justification for its continuance is a matter of opinion."

The Queen and Prince Charles are asked to approve bills which relate to royal  powers and interests of the Crown and Duchy of Cornwall. Last year internal Whitehall papers published for the first time under Freedom  of Information revealed that 39 bills have been subject to Royal approval.

The report says that people should not have to resort to freedom of information to obtain material which "throws light" on how law is made by Parliament.

The Queen has been asked to approve changes to child maintenance, national insurance and paternity pay because they apply to employees of the Royal household.

In 2004 legislation introducing tuition fees 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 would "bind Her Majesty".
Buckingham Palace has described the process as a "long-established convention", while a spokesman for the Prince of Wales has said that "every instance" in which the he has given his consent is a "matter for public record".

The MPs also warn that ministers are using the process to block private members bills by advising that royal consent should be denied. They are calling for ministers to give up the effective power of veto.

A Cabinet Office spokesman said: "The Government welcomes the report by the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee on the role of Queen’s and Prince’s Consent in the legislative process.

My interpretation of the highlighted section is that at the core of this report - whether it initiates changes or not - is a question mark over the validity/necessity of the institutions'/monarch's legislative role and by extension the appropriateness of old conventions in a modern political environment.  It's interesting to see a review - however minor - taking place on the old legislative courtesies. I certainly welcome more transparency.