On 6 January 2020, a senior civil servant sent the Queen’s top aide, Sir Edward Young, a letter that was clothed in dry formality.
The official, Georgina Collins, said she was writing on behalf of the environment secretary “to seek Queen’s consent to measures within the agriculture bill. This bill contains measures on future agricultural policy that affect the interests of the crown.”
It was the first of four letters in similar tone that were sent to the palace by senior officials at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs over a period of 11 months. The most recent was dated 3 November.
The letters reveal how the archaic parliamentary mechanism, which originated in the 1700s, is still being used in the present day to give the Queen – an unelected individual – the unique right to be consulted on draft laws that affect the crown and her private interests.
In this case, the correspondence, obtained using the Freedom of Information Act, suggests the government gave the Queen a chance to screen the legislation because it could affect one of her most treasured possessions – the grand Sandringham estate in Norfolk.
As one of the country’s biggest landowners, the Queen is among the recipients of the biggest farming subsidies in England. Over the years she has received millions of pounds in taxpayers’ subsidies for her farm that sits on the estate. Last year the subsidy amounted to £936,000.
A Sandringham spokesperson said: “Farming and conservation are at the forefront of the estate’s practices, and this annual subsidy supports Sandringham’s ongoing conversion to organic farming and commitment to maintaining the local environment and wildlife habitats across the estate.”
The consent procedure requires the government to send draft legislation to the monarch – or, on occasion, the heir to the throne – so that they and their lawyers can examine whether it affects their personal interests, their private property or their public functions.
The most recent example was the act passed on 30 December that implemented Boris Johnson’s post-Brexit trade deal with the European Union. Parliamentarians were told that the Queen had consented to the bill, although – as is customary – there was no explanation given in parliament about how she may have been affected. Another recent example is the agriculture bill.
The Queen and her family spend large amounts of the year enjoying, and running, the 20,000-acre Sandringham estate, where they traditionally spend Christmas. The estate, which includes prime farmland, has been owned by her family since it was bought by Queen Victoria in 1862.
As well as producing crops such as wheat, barley, beans, and oats, her farm grows blackcurrants that are sold to make Ribena. It also sells lamb to a major retailer. Eight tenant farmers rent 9,000 acres from the estate.
All of this means that the Queen has a special personal interest in the government’s agricultural policies. During her reign, she and her son – also a major landowner – have vetted at least eight parliamentary bills relating to agricultural issues.
The latest occasion was last year when Johnson’s administration started to take the agriculture bill through parliament. His government hailed the bill as heralding the biggest shake-up of farming policy in England for 50 years.
On 6 January, 10 days before MPs began debating the bill, Collins, an aide to the then environment secretary, Theresa Villiers, wrote to the palace explaining the “intent of the areas where we consider it requires the consent of Her Majesty”.
She outlined specific measures that “will apply to the crown” or “affect the crown’s interests”. These concerned clauses changing the regulation of farming tenancies, promoting fair contractual relationships between producers and the business purchasers of their products, and empowering the government to collect data from farming operations.
Senior Defra officials sent two further letters to the palace, on 27 October and 3 November, as the bill completed its final stages through parliament. These letters centred on the Queen’s notional powers under the royal prerogative to sign treaties relating to international animal and environmental standards.
Peers were told on 9 November that the Queen had consented to the bill. Whether she lobbied behind the scenes for changes in the bill, as documents suggest she appears to have done on other occasions, is not known. She declined to respond when asked by the Guardian if she had made representations to the government.
The answer may not be revealed until the files are released to the National Archives in two decades’ time.
