Scottish ministers have rejected calls to confirm whether King Charles III asked for changes to a Scottish rent freeze bill that could affect tenancies on his Highland estate.
The Scottish Liberal Democrats wanted to change an emergency bill that is being rushed through Holyrood and will freeze rents for private tenants in Scotland for six months, in response to the cost of living crisis.
Their amendment, which fell by 22 votes to 93, called on ministers to disclose whether the King used his opaque powers, known in Scotland as crown consent, to seek changes to the bill, to disclose whether there had been any discussions about its objectives with the King’s lawyers, and to discover what ministers did as a result of those alleged discussions.
King Charles has private tenants on his estate at Balmoral but his late mother, Queen Elizabeth II, did not object to similar Scottish government measures introduced to freeze rents during the Covid crisis in 2020.
The Lib Dems’ proposals were backed by Scottish Labour, in a sign that MSPs are becoming increasingly unhappy about the refusal of ministers to disclose if, when and how the monarch has tried to influence legislation.
The Guardian revealed last year that ministers in Edinburgh allowed the Queen to vet at least 67 bills that affected her personal property and public powers under the arcane rule, inherited from Westminster. According to the rule, such bills need to secure the monarch’s consent before they can be passed by the Scottish parliament.
Alex Cole-Hamilton, the Scottish Liberal Democrat leader, told MSPs on Wednesday evening the public interest case for greater transparency about the King’s role was clear. As this was the first piece of Scottish legislation the King had been asked to consent to, it was an ideal opportunity for the monarch and ministers to become more open, Cole-Hamilton said.
“Transparency and scrutiny are pillars of our democracy,” he added. “They have indeed been championed by our new King, and parliament has the opportunity tonight to agree upon the principle. I believe people have a right to know when changes [have] happened because of discussions between ministers and the crown.”
Buckingham Palace officials deny that this mechanism is used to lobby for changes to protect the royal family’s interests. A Scottish government memo revealed, however, it was “almost certain” draft laws had been secretly changed to secure the late Queen’s approval.
The Guardian’s disclosures led Holyrood’s presiding officer, Alison Johnstone, to change the rules by requiring ministers to tell MSPs if a new bill is affected by crown consent as soon as it is introduced. Previously ministers only told them in the final stage of a bill’s progress.
Johnstone’s rule first came into force with the cost of living (tenant protection) (Scotland) bill, being debated by MSPs this week. Ministers also voluntarily agreed this week to slightly increase transparency about the crown consent process, by telling MSPs for the first time why crown consent was needed.
George Adam, the minister for parliamentary business, said bills were routinely changed after discussions with stakeholders, and the King was no different. There was already greater transparency with this bill because ministers had voluntarily decided, earlier this week, to state why crown consent applied to the King’s assets.
“We are the first Scottish government to make this additional information available to parliament on a bill’s introduction,” he said. “This will ensure that MSPs have full information on introduction of a bill to enable them to scrutinise and debate this throughout the passage of the bill.”
