Prince Charles's secret veto documents to be released

Secret documents detailing the use by Prince Charles of his little-known power of veto over government bills must be released, the information commissioner has ruled. A limited number of papers that show how the prince was consulted, in his capacity as the Duke of Cornwall, over the marine and coastal access bill, should be released within a month. Many others will remain confidential under the ruling, which was described by freedom of information campaigners as only a partial victory. The case centres on the Whitehall convention that means the Prince of Wales must be consulted on any government bill that might affect his own interests, in particular, the Duchy of Cornwall, a private £700m property empire that last year provided him with an £18m income. The arrangement has been described as akin to a royal "nuclear deterrent" over government legislation. There is no evidence that the prince has ever exercised the veto. Mystery around its application, however, has fuelled concern that it may underpin his lobbying of ministers directly and through his charities on pet concerns such as traditional architecture and the environment. In October, the Guardian revealed that since 2005 the government has sought Charles' consent on at least a dozen government bills, ranging from road safety to gambling and the Olympic games. The government had argued that disclosure of the documents on the marine and coastal access bill to an academic who requested them under environmental information regulations, "would adversely affect the Prince of Wales by invading his privacy". It could also "undermine the way in which he and his representatives correspond with ministers by impinging on the constitutional convention that the Prince of Wales is able to correspond with government ministers in confidence", the information commissioner's ruling states. However, the commissioner ruled that correspondence from Defra to the prince was not covered by the convention of secrecy around communication between the Prince and government ministers and should be published. The commissioner also made a strong case for greater transparency on other communications about the prince's consent. Considering the arguments in favour of disclosure, he said: "The public interest lies in knowing more about how The Prince of Wales in his capacity as Duke of Cornwall may influence government policy and the process by which his consent is obtained when parliamentary bills may affect the interests of the Duchy of Cornwall." He continued: "The monarchy has a central role in the British constitution and in the commissioner's view the public is entitled to know how the various mechanisms of the constitution operate in practice." But he ruled that this argument was outweighed by the "general public interest in upholding confidences and in protecting the process by which prince's consent is obtained" and so ordered that those documents could remain confidential. Defra had argued that the information was covered by the principle regarding the heir to the throne and government ministers being able to correspond in confidence in order to prepare him for when he becomes king. "The information here is different from other royal communications because it concerns the Prince of Wales being consulted because legislation may affect his interests as Duke of Cornwall," the commissioner said. "Essentially, he is being consulted in his role as a landowner rather than as the heir to the throne." However, he ordered that the information could be kept secret saying that as it was a constitutional process it warranted protection. The appeal was made by John Kirkhope, a public notary and graduate law student at the University of Plymouth. "The making of law by parliament is, arguably, one of the most fundamental aspects of our constitution," he said. "We expect that process to be open to public scrutiny. "It simply cannot be right that an organisation which insists it is a 'private estate' has privileged access to government such that it can influence the process of creating an act of parliament. When that system of consultation is opaque then it bound to raise suspicion in the minds of the public. "The decision of the ICO goes at least some way to making the process more transparent." The Duchy of Cornwall has the right to appeal against the judgment.