We never got to the Committee Stage of my Private Members Bill today, since the discussion on previous bills got the House to its finishing time of 1500 on Fridays. (Rights of the Sovereign and the Duchy of Cornwall Bill)
A pity, but I’ll chase for another day to debate, particularly the Clause about the Duchy of Cornwall, which would transfer the assets and property of the Duchy of Cornwall to a public trust for the benefit of the people of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. Many people have helped me with examples of how and why the Duchy operates and matters of concern, and there is much history to unravel. That is why I proposed a simple clause with provisions for the Secretary of State, whoever he/she might be, to make provisions for this in secondary legislation.
It is worth summarising what I see wrong with the present set-up. Many of these issues have been investigated by Dr John Kirkhope, whose papers and research are very well worth while reading. Many others have contributed to creating a long list of issues that should be debated and eventually resolved. This can either be by this Bill or a new Bill with much more detailed provisions; however, they are so complicated that it would be much better for this all to be done by Government, if and when we can persuade a Government of the necessity for change.
Here are some of the headings of issues:
– Is the Duchy a separate body from the Duke of Cornwall?
– Does either enjoy Crown immunity, Crown Exemption, and on what legal basis?
– Mineral rights in Cornwall and offshore? Do these belong to the Duchy or Crown?
– The whole issue of Bona Vacantia, Treasure Trove, people dying intestate and bankrupt companies in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly; all to the Duchy account.
– Leasehold Reform – not applicable to Duchy properties?
– Lease for Life – pauper in death! They occasionally allow you to build at your own expense on Duchy land, charge ground rent, deny you any right to sell or pass the property on to your children and when you die, then take the property back..
– Capital Gains Tax, Income Tax, Corporation Tax etc, Duchy and/or Duke liability?
– Crown Application?
There are also questions about whether the Duchy is fiddling the books! Not the financial books, but the legal ones. As noted in the Bruton case before the Information Rights Tribunal, The Commissioner and the Duchy both relied on the statement in the current edition of Halsbury’s Laws to the effect that the Duchy is not a separate legal entity, although there appears to be no legal basis for such a claim. So why is this in Halsbury’s Laws of England, which is not just a legal text book but has a similar status to Erskine May? Surely it cannot be because the current author of the relevant section of Halsbury’s Laws is reported to be a Solicitor at Farrer’s, the retained solicitors of the Duchy and the Prince of Wales, and who might have changed the law book to help the Duchy’s case?
To support all this, the Duchy gets free legal services of the government legal team, the Treasury Solicitor, and frequently states that it is’ above the law!’ Quite so, especially if they can quietly change the law to suit their own ends.
This is not a situation that can be tolerated in a parliamentary democracy – it is feudal! Worse still, there seems to be a cartel of silence, obfuscation and downright fiddling of the evidence, coupled with a very unattractive obsequiousness on the part of successive ministers which is deeply unattractive and unfit for a 21st century parliamentary democracy. I intend to carry on with this work, so invite comments, views and experiences – to berkeleyafg@parliament.uk/
Tony Berkeley House of Lords December 2013
Is the Duchy a separate body from the Duke of Cornwall?
He is chairman of it.
– Does either enjoy Crown immunity, Crown Exemption, and on what legal basis?
Ask his mother.
– Mineral rights in Cornwall and offshore? Do these belong to the Duchy or Crown?
The same as North sea oil rights I should hope but (having the Wych farm oil right under this house) there may be ways of acquiring mineral rights, under one’s own property which differ from their being under what was,faute de mieux, the asset of the state, the sea bed. Whilst a tenant would be unable to make such acquisitions a freehold owner could.
– The whole issue of Bona Vacantia, Treasure Trove, people dying intestate and bankrupt companies in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly; all to the Duchy account.
I remarked here the other day that the methods of acquisition of farm estate, by the ancient aristos, is surprising. That intestacy is watched very carefully indeed and adverse possession in conjunction with it, to guarantee a genealogical
right, often spurious. The ghost of Henry Tudor has been informed. He argued about it and won. The farming industry is so rarefied these days that it is not difficult to maintain such a close view; no competition for the genes or the adversity!
– Leasehold Reform – not applicable to Duchy properties?
A good pal of mine, many years ago,. lost the freehold on about 200 properties,in the east end,(he was an official receiver) as a result of the Leasehold Reform act of about 1964. I believe the Duchy suceeded in having itself excluded from that Reform whereas those with lesser knowledge of private members’ bills in the Lords, which were doubtless used for the Duchy leases exclusion, were unable to do anything, to have their own interests excluded from that Act
– Lease for Life – pauper in death! They occasionally allow you to build at your own expense on Duchy land, charge ground rent, deny you any right to sell or pass the property on to your children and when you die, then take the property back..
It would be more honest to pay the market value of the life time development of the property at the time of death of the leaseholder.
– Capital Gains Tax, Income Tax, Corporation Tax etc, Duchy and/or Duke liability?
Don’t know
– Crown Application?
Don’t know
How any of this chicanery by the establishment under the guise of Monarchy is kept alive is beyond medieval.
All lands and accoutrement handed the name of Royal or Duchy was stolen over the centuries and should be abolished in its present form by the State and reclaimed in the name of the people. In other words ‘Nationalise’ it completely. And set these people free.
They clearly dislike the game of Royal and wish they were like the rest of us ordinary folk. Lets be straight here, how much royal blood is really in those veins. Not a lot if you consider the ‘commoners’ and other ‘siders’ especially the most recent additions. It is laughable. No breeding, not even a pretense at it. Wallis Simpson comes to mind as the likeness is remarkable.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/06/prince-edward-wallis-simpson-jewellery-family-auction-southebys
There is that quite definite swarthy look not akin to the English rose.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/2011-04-28-cnbc-royal-wedding-wealth_n.htm
The Royals, as we know, are of European decent, mostly German. Not British at all. Surely the right thing to do would be to join the modern world and follow France and the land of the free, USA, by becoming a Republic.
A family should not own England’s lands or those of its adjoining states, it should be owned by its people.
The Duchy should be wiped out as should the rest of the Duchy’s, Lancashire and any other known and unknown.
Would make their lives a whole lot easier not having to worry constantly about increasing their portfolio and robbing the poor to pay for their lavish lifestyle. Not to mention constantly on guard should someone within be looking to siphon off their billions. Big headache gone. What relief.
http://www.totalpolitics.com/opinion/313322/is-our-monarchy-outdated.thtml
Of course they bottle out at the end of this truth but they know it doesn’t make any sense at all. And this scam is not loved by the working classes one iota. Who tells them this rubbish. it’s a set up. The insane few maybe, the Diana weepers, but that’s it. Except of course the aristocrats, now they have a lot to lose.
After reading Maude’s post I am just left hoping that we are all human, and not in-cautious about scripted remarks.
It is the old argument between Content and Form; what you say rather than the way you say it, and the latter includes whom you say it about.
Thought trivialized by personality attacks is no thought at all, not even a vestige of prayer in it. I hope I say mine properly,
and stick to subject matter. It is not easy to do in public life
(including this board and any other public board/blog) but if it can be learned, it is a pathway to real knowledge, of the body politic,self respect and respect for the opinions of others.
Would you ask that the same be done for any person who has inherited a business from anyone? Why hold just the Duchy to that standard? Also, you would also complain if the government were asked to cough up more money to pay for the offices and upkeep of the heir. You cannot get it both ways. The Duchy is a great asset to the people who live and work on/for it, and the Duke does not take the full profit for himself, and while he is exempt from taxes, he does pay them. Governments will pass laws and leave tax loopholes to allow billionaires, like Rupert Murdock, to avoid paying taxes on his profits or what he would pass along to his heirs, but just because the hands of Charles, are actually tied to the lands, and he’s not actually allowed to have another job, then you want to pull this away for a public trust- which basically means you want to put the control of the money into the hands of politicians, who as we know are not very good with money meant for the public, but are very good with making profits for themselves. At least in the hands of Charles, he sees it as being his place with the responsibility as the Duke to take care of the people and the Duchy for future generations, something a politician isn’t as apt to do.