Clause 302
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords]
11:00 am
Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)
Briefly, once again, I simply wish to probe the Minister on the advice he has received on subsection (2) (c) in relation to the Duchy of Cornwall. There are a number of constitutional issues that apply to the Duchy of Cornwall and I am interested to know what advice he has received in drafting the clause. There is currently a debate, which I am sure he is well aware of, about the duchy’s relationship to the Crown. I am sure that defining the duchy as Crown land for the purposes of the Bill is legitimate. However, what advice did he seek on the duchy’s constitutional status? Since the duchy was established by charters in 1337 to 1338, the Duke of Cornwall has owned the foreshore around Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. In England—the hon. Member for Newbury might be interested in staying awake for this bit—the foreshore is primarily owned by the Crown. There are also other very interesting constitutional issues relating to the Duchy of Cornwall. If one dies intestate in Cornwall, it is quite different from dying intestate on the other side of the frontier in England. The Duchy of Lancaster, as I understand it, is much more accountable to Parliament than the Duchy of Cornwall.
The fact that the UK is without a codified constitution gives rise to a number of constitutional conundrums, given the accretions to the English and later British monarchy from 1066. Although I do not wish to go back over the whole history of the issue, what is interesting in relation to this matter is the constitutional basis on which the duchy is incorporated. Those who debate the role of the duchy and its relationship to the Crown point out that the duchy often defines itself at the same time in its constitutional role and as a distinct private estate. I would be interested in any clarification or light the Minister might be able to throw on the issue in relation to the clause.