Queen secretly lobbied Scottish ministers for
climate law exemption
Monarch used secretive procedure to become only person
in country not bound by a green energy rule
The documents disclose how the Queen used her special
access to Scottish legislation to intervene in the parliamentary process as
recently as February.
Rob Evans,
Severin Carrell and David Pegg
Wed 28 Jul
2021 14.00 BST
The Queen’s
lawyers secretly lobbied Scottish ministers to change a draft law to exempt her
private land from a major initiative to cut carbon emissions, documents reveal.
The
exemption means the Queen, one of the largest landowners in Scotland, is the
only person in the country not required to facilitate the construction of
pipelines to heat buildings using renewable energy.
Her lawyers
secured the dispensation from Scotland’s government five months ago by
exploiting an obscure parliamentary procedure known as Queen’s consent, which
gives the monarch advance sight of legislation.
The arcane
parliamentary mechanism has been borrowed from Westminster, where it has
existed as a custom since the 1700s.
In a series
of reports into Queen’s consent in recent months, the Guardian revealed how the
Queen repeatedly used her privileged access to draft laws to lobby ministers to
change UK legislation to benefit her private interests or reflect her opinions
between the late 1960s and the 1980s.
The new
documents, uncovered by Lily Humphreys, a researcher for the Scottish Liberal
Democrats using freedom of information laws, disclose how the monarch used her
special access to Scottish legislation to intervene in the parliamentary
process as recently as February.
The
documents also suggest Nicola Sturgeon’s government failed to disclose the
monarch’s lobbying this year when a Scottish politician used a parliamentary
debate to query why the Queen was securing an exemption from the green energy
bill.
The move
appears at odds with the royal family’s public commitment to tackling the
climate crisis, with Prince William recently joining his father, Charles, in
campaigning to cut emissions and protect the planet.
Sturgeon’s
government heralded the bill as a key piece of legislation to combat the
climate emergency. It said the law, known as the heat networks bill, would help
cut emissions, reduce fuel poverty and create green jobs.
The
legislation enabled the construction of pipelines to heat clusters of homes and
businesses using renewable energy, rather than from separate fossil fuel
boilers.
On 12
January, John Somers, Sturgeon’s principal private secretary, wrote to Sir
Edward Young, the Queen’s most senior aide, asking for her consent to the heat
networks bill. In his letter, Somers said it would allow companies and public
authorities to compulsorily buy land from landowners.
On 3
February, officials working for Paul Wheelhouse, the then energy minister,
recorded that the Queen’s lawyers raised concerns about the bill. They also
recorded he had agreed to alter the bill, noting the “minister agreed to
proposed amendment that would addressed [sic] concerns from Queen’s
solicitors”. This had been done in relation to the Queen’s consent process.
On 17
February, a courtier told the Scottish government the Queen had given her
consent to allow the bill to be passed.
Five days
later, when MSPs debated the bill, Wheelhouse put forward an amendment that
applied only to land privately owned by the Queen. It specifically prevents
companies and public authorities from compelling the Queen to sell pieces of
her land to enable the green energy pipelines to be built.
Buckingham
Palace says Queen’s consent, a process requiring ministers to notify lawyers
when a proposed bill might affect her public powers or private interests, is a
“purely formal” part of the parliamentary process.
However,
there are increasing examples where the Queen has taken advantage of her
consent privileges to require changes before she formally consents to the law
proceeding through parliament. That appears to have occurred on this occasion
in Scotland, where the procedure – known as crown consent – operates in the
same way.
During the
debate over the parliamentary bill, Andy Wightman, then an independent MSP,
objected to the amendment, arguing it was wrong to single out the Queen for
preferential treatment.
Wheelhouse
responded that the amendment was “required to ensure the smooth passage of the
bill”. However, he did not disclose that the Queen’s lawyers had lobbied for
the change. The amendment was passed with Wightman and a handful of other MSPs
opposing it.
After being
informed about the new documents, Wightman said he was “shocked to discover
that the amendment was put in place in order to secure Queen’s consent. That
should have been stated in the debate.
“If changes
are being requested in order to secure Queen’s consent, people should be told
about that and it appears in this case we were not told.”
Unlike the
better-known procedure of royal assent, a formality that brings a bill into
law, Queen’s consent gives the monarch a mechanism to covertly meddle with
proposed UK laws without the public knowing about her intervention.
Revelations
earlier this year about how the Queen had vetted draft laws before they were
approved by the UK’s elected representatives prompted more than 65,000 people
to call for an inquiry into the “unfathomable” process.
Adam
Tucker, a senior lecturer in constitutional law at the University of Liverpool,
said disclosures made it plain the process was more than a mere formality and
“should prompt grave concerns about the practice’s continued existence”.
Willie
Rennie, who stood down recently as leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats,
said the documents raised concerns about “secret doors” made available to the
monarch to change laws. “Others who lobby for changes have to declare it,” he
said. “That should be true for everyone.”
Rennie
added: “The Queen rightly does not express her views publicly and does so
privately with the prime minister and first minister. However, this is
different. It’s about the interests of the head of state’s assets and direct
interests. Any of these communications should be notified publicly and openly
so we can judge for ourselves.”
A
Buckingham Palace spokesperson said: “The royal household can be consulted on
bills in order to ensure the technical accuracy and consistency of the
application of the bill to the crown, a complex legal principle governed by
statute and common law. This process does not change the nature of any such
bill.”
Wheelhouse,
who lost his seat at the last election, said: “I led several bills in my time
and these sort of exemptions for the Queen’s interests are sometimes required
as a necessary step.”
The
Scottish government did not answer questions about the number of bills that
provided special exemptions for the Queen, or whether greater transparency was
needed.
In a short
statement, a spokesperson said: “Scottish government policy is that the crown
should be subject to regulatory requirements on the same basis as everyone
else, unless there is a legitimate reason for an exemption or variation.
However, crown consent is required by law if a bill impacts the private
property or interests of the sovereign – and that is what happened in this
case.”
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário