Queen's Consent Is a Constitutional Outrage – Parliament Must Abolish It

THE GUARDIAN: If an MP or peer sought to secretly influence a draft bill in this way, it could lead to a criminal charge

The practice of Queen’s consent, on which the Guardian has shone a welcome light in recent days, is a constitutional outrage. It gives an unelected person the opportunity to require changes to draft legislation in order to benefit herself financially, or to exempt herself from laws she does not like, and to do so in secret without any public accountability.

If an MP or peer sought to secretly influence a draft bill to advantage themselves in this way, it would be called corruption. It could lead to a criminal charge.

The palace likes to pretend that the practice of Queen’s consent is all ceremonial, somehow rather quaint. “Any assertion that the sovereign has blocked legislation is simply incorrect,” they say. This is both accurate and entirely misleading. The Queen does not block legislation because she does not need to. The draft bill is sent to the palace and to her legal advisers. If they have objections, they will ring the Cabinet Office and relay these. Nothing is normally put in writing these days, to avoid a written record. The bill is then altered to meet the Queen’s wishes and the revised version is then sent back and gains her consent. You see? Nothing has been “blocked”. » | Norman Baker | Wednesday, February 10, 2021