Expert: No place in a democracy for secret meetings between King and PM

Major constitutional reform change should be considered after the coronation of King Charles, expected next year, according to a constitutional law expert.

Jeff King, professor of law at University College London, suggested the weekly meetings between the prime minister and the monarch to discuss government matters could be reviewed.

Queen Elizabeth held a private audience with Prime Ministers every week during her 70-year reign. King said: “The succession is not the best time to contemplate major constitutional reform.

“The best time is probably once the occasion is over and it isn’t seen as crass to count the financial costs of the institution, consider its symbolism and democratic credentials, and to contemplate more seriously the significance of King Charles having a confidential weekly oneto-one with the prime minister getting his views on matters of state.”

King said weekly meeting between the prime minister and the monarch have “no appropriate place in this day and age”.

He said: “The monarch may have a wisdom, but if it’s wisdom you are after then I don’t think it should be appointed on a hereditary basis.”

He also suggested there should be a codified British constitution. He said: “I think that a process of constitutional reform that directly involves the public would be appropriate because it would be more democratic.

“I think a Bill of Rights, given a firm legal footing in a constitution, is appropriate so that it can’t be tampered with it by ordinary legislation.”

Vernon Bogdanor, professor of government at King’s College London, said Britain should have a written constitution.

Bogdanor said: “We’re one of three democracies without one. The other two are New Zealand, which has a population half the size of greater London, and Israel, which is working towards one.

“People ask should we have a constitution, but maybe the real question is what is special about Britain that we don’t have a constitution.

“The answer is the sovereignty of parliament, which would obviously have to be limited if we had a constitution, which I think would be good. But we are not going to get that in the near future.

“I think the immediate future and quite an urgent need is to have a charter, which lays down the relationships between Westminster and the devolved bodies, the rights and duties of each laid out in statute.”