03 Mar 2010
Last night, the Constitutional Reform and Governance bill received its second reading in Parliament. It passed easily and is now on its way to the Lords.
A little noticed aspect of this Bill is an amendment to the Freedom of Information Act. Regular readers of this blog will know exactly what that amendment would mean – the royal family’s communications with government will be excluded from the Act for 20 years, and then until five years after the death of the individual concerned.
The monarchy is, of course, already exempt from the FOI Act. But at present – at least in theory – the public may still get their hands on correspondence between the royal family and government ministers if there is a public interest in releasing the material.
The amendment would remove this public interest test for all communication from the monarch, the heir to the throne and the second in line. The message is very clear: the royal family’s interest always takes precedence over the public’s.
So why does the government want to make its work less transparent at a time when all parties are talking about “cleaning up” politics?
The Ministry of Justice has stated that the present safeguards within the Freedom of Information Act are “insufficiently robust to protect our current constitutional arrangements”. The proposed ban on access to royal documents is designed “to ensure that our information access arrangements allow essential constitutional relationships and conventions to be preserved”.
It doesn’t take a conspiracy nut to understand the government’s real motivation. As Maurice Frankel from the Campaign for Freedom of Information points out,
The main aim appears to be to protect Prince Charles’s correspondence with ministers. None has yet been disclosed, but currently it could be – rightly so – if the Prince’s intervention seriously affects a minister’s decision. That door regretfully may now be closed.
Basically, there are a hell of a lot of “communications” out there bearing the Clarence House stamp that, if made public, would likely cause a constitutional crisis. The true extent of Charle’s political lobbying is probably far greater than we’re currently led to believe.
If passed, this amendment would mean that Charles’s attempts to influence government policy on health, architecture, education, agriculture, the environment, even war and peace, will remain secret – until years after his death. Far from protecting “impartiality”, this amendment gives Charles the green light to get even more stuck in.
During the course of last night’s debate, Jack Straw reassured MPs that
there is no way that members of the royal family can change public policy. They may have opinions, and they are entitled to those-why would they not be? [...]
the work that Prince Charles has done in better educating the public about, and ensuring that they are better informed about, one of the world’s wonderful religions, Islam, is remarkable. Some people might regard that as slightly partisan, but I do not; I think that it is entirely appropriate for him to do that. However, he is not making public policy on that matter; public policy is ultimately decided by this place.
In that case, there’s no harm in being entirely open and transparent about his communications with ministers. Straw says our constitutional arrangements are threatened by greater transparency. We say this is an argument for a new constitution – not more secrecy.
Take action
The royal FOI ban has got this far largely because the media has ignored the issue. If you want to help stop the ban, please write to your newspaper and explain what the government is doing, what this will mean for democracy and why you believe it must be stopped.
There is a much better chance of your letter being published if you relate it to a current story – such as FOI being used to reveal communications about Lord Ashcroft or Professor Edzard Ernst’s claim that his department will be shut down after pressure from Charles.
You can write to:
This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 3rd, 2010 at 12:43 pm and is filed under General, Prince Charles, freedom of information. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Comments are now closed.
Facebook
Twitter
March 3rd, 2010 at 2:43 pm
Frankly, this stinks. The odour of corruption in high places.
March 3rd, 2010 at 2:48 pm
What truly depressing news. Just what I wanted to read when I’m on holiday. We must continue to campaign against this affront to democracy.
March 3rd, 2010 at 5:10 pm
\They may have opinions, and they are entitled to those-why would they not be?\
I was under the impression they were supposed to be impartial?
March 3rd, 2010 at 7:04 pm
Jack Straw never fails to surprise me. He’s a different person to the Head of the National Union of Students who I once admired. This article sums him up for me ;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/31/jack-straw-principled-political-careerist
The people desperately need someone to speak up for them, even if they are blissfully unaware of this attack on transparency and democracy which has been perpetrated by these excuses for public servants. Few of our elected career politicians will do so, not when it matters, as far as I can see.
March 3rd, 2010 at 7:23 pm
Sorry for the double post but I’ve been reading Hansard and the following passage stuck out :
Mark Durkan: Will my right hon. Friend clarify whether the exemption will apply only to matters that are directly and personally communicated by the relevant members of the royal family, or also to anything voiced by third parties, perhaps at semi-private lunches to which Ministers are invited?
2 Mar 2010 : Column 846
Mr. Straw: I am sorry to resort to the text of new schedule 1, but my hon. Friend will see that it sets out the relevant categories of information-communications with the sovereign, the heir and the second heir. The key word is “communications”, which covers a wide range of information. I believe that it is appropriate that it should. [Interruption.] I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has handed me a note stating that the provision applies also to those acting on behalf of the relevant members of the royal family, which I said in my opening remark
Ah so that’s how it works. A nods as good as a wink and all that.
And the following from Dr Tony Wright
I want to say something about the royal family exemption, however. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told me that all such things were inconceivable when I raised the question of what would happen if a royal did something or other but, of course, there is a history to all this. Monarchs in the past have not behaved themselves terribly well in terms of the constitutional relationship. People did not know about it at the time, but they jolly well ought to have done. Just before the 1880 election, Queen Victoria wrote in a memorandum:
“If the Liberals…intend to lean to the extreme Radicals, they can never expect any support from the Queen…These are dangerous times and any attempt to make our Institutions Democratic will be most disastrous”.
I think that people would have been entitled to know that that was coming out of the palace. In 1906, when the Labour party did rather well in the election, people were entitled to have known that the Prince of Wales, who later became King George V, wrote:
“I see that a great number of Labour members have been returned which is a rather a dangerous sign, but I hope they are not all socialists.”
People are entitled to know such things.
Jack Straw didn’t address these points.
March 3rd, 2010 at 7:46 pm
It looks like the 1st televised leaders debate will be in Manchester on April 15th. This is when they’ll be discussing domestic politics.
http://www.bristol247.com/2010/03/03/city-to-host-party-leaders-tv-election-debate/
Let’s hope there’s a chance when someone can bring this subject up!
March 3rd, 2010 at 10:18 pm
Ashley – “Let’s hope there’s a chance when someone can bring this subject up!”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/02/details-leaders-election-debates
The public should, according to the details released, be able to submit questions by email. Although I think we should all submit a question in relation to this FOI and the royals, my guess is that the three leaders will be rock solidly together on this if ever they were to be questioned upon it.
You will see from the following link that the politicians have grasped control of the debate from the networks.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/mar/03/leaders-debates-live-television
March 3rd, 2010 at 10:22 pm
I just read this ;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/02/how-leaders-election-debates-will-work
So there’s no chance of a question on FOI being accepted, (see rule 27).
March 4th, 2010 at 12:39 am
Refusing to allow scrutiny or accountability is undoubtedly corruption by any yardstick.
What these unrestrained components of Government fail to realise is that scrutiny and accountability actually protect THEM. By being subject to such measures, everyone can see that elected (and non-elected) public representatives are working in the public interest.
Democracy does not operate behind closed doors.
Instead, the Republican cause is intensified – Maybe within a few years this will become an electoral issue in the unlikely event that any of the major political parties decides to tackle corruption in the highest places of Government ….. although we will all remember the last time that folks like John Major, Jeffrey Archer and Jonathan Aitkin decided to stick their head above the parapet in the interests of “truth and justice”.
March 4th, 2010 at 6:15 pm
It’s ironic that lords Ashcroft and Paul are being pilloried, for party political purposes, by their respective opponents. Both of these supposed pillars of the establishment are being accused of being secretive and duplicitous regarding their tax arrangements. It would make you smile if the sheer hypocrisy and stench of corruption wasn’t so sickening.
March 4th, 2010 at 10:04 pm
Bob
The theme for the Manchester debate is as follows:
Domestic affairs including but not exclusively : NHS; Education; Immigration; Law and Order; Family; Constitution; Trust in politics; Political reform;
It’s also worth reading this press release from the ICO from June 2009.
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/pressreleases/2009/foi_live_pr_110609.pdf
March 5th, 2010 at 10:20 pm
i love it when the media and political parties all work together and help defend the nation and the royal family. Doesn’t it make you all proud to be British?
Of course it was much easier in the past when all documents could just be shredded, now they have to go to such extremes and pass legislation! How times change.
March 5th, 2010 at 11:20 pm
A totalitarian is adherent to the principles of centralised political authority that self regulates its own right to limitless power and recognises the authorities right to propogate its own propaganda through state controlled media. That be you then!
March 6th, 2010 at 10:09 am
“i love it when the media and political parties all work together and help defend the nation and the royal family. Doesn’t it make you all proud to be British? ”
No problem with looking out for Britain. As far as the Royals are concerned…errr….no! I actually find them a massive embarassment for this country. Even more embarrasing are views like the above which put them on a riduculous pedastal.
If the Queen’s surrogate son wishes to have so little self worth in worshipping those who least deserve it, that’s his lookout. I support him 100% if he wishes to waste his time doing this. What I object to is his insistance on myself and others doing the same thing! Not a chance in hell of that happening I’m afraid!
March 6th, 2010 at 8:40 pm
Simon is a troll, just ignore his ramblings and maybe he’ll give us a break.
March 6th, 2010 at 9:57 pm
My idea is that Simon either has a very worrying level of sycophancy and servility, or he is really a secret republican, who is parodying monarchists by repeating their usual baseless, cringeworthy arguments in order to make THEM look stupid, show the monarchist case up for what it is, sharpen other republicans’ wits, and gain Republic many more members?
I hope it’s the latter! He’s certainly been doing it long enough!
March 6th, 2010 at 10:07 pm
I agree, ignore Simon.
March 6th, 2010 at 10:42 pm
Which is why I have not replied to the outbursts bought on by his ‘illness’ of late! His deranged views are not worth bothering with!
March 7th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
I am not a troll and i am not a closet republican.
I have made many reasonable and serious posts on this site, sadly my comments are ignored.
For example it was several months ago i highlighted the deeply flawed page on royal finances. I pointed out how the page is misleading people not only about the cost of our own monarchy but the cost of republics. I did detailed research which i presented to everyone here, yet the incorrect information on this website has yet to be fixed.
I have on many occasions given reasons why becoming a republic could be dangerous and have a negative impact on this country. Again it is simply ignored or dismissed.
March 7th, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Dear Simon,
To be quite honest, I do not think your remarks have been ignored. Over the period of time you have regularly contributed I think that many people have listened to your views and have seriously replied to them. Whether there has always been agreement with some of your views is another matter. Perhaps you are not a troll, but I think a lot of folk had come to the conclusion that you were because you had often posted royalist slogans,( god save the queen ), etc.and other repetitious remarks. At the End of the Day, ( sorry about this awful expression,but it fits at present ), I do not think the comparative costs of monarchy v republic matter. It seems very hard to get at the Truth,and in any case as we have not had a republic since the times of Cromwell, we cannot really know about the costs of a modern republic. One can probably claim with a fair degree of surety that a republic would be cheaper. I think Common Sense can tell us that royalty is excessively expensive and wasteful due to the number of homes royalty possesses ,plus other excessive assets., for starters .If we had a republic it would be incumbent upon us to ensure that expenses were pared down for its function. A republic would not be dangerous. It would be a much fairer and healthy system of governance. Royalty of all sorts is superfluous.
March 7th, 2010 at 4:43 pm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1252377/No-official-role-Pushys-security-14m.html#ixzz0hVen3ars
I agree, the costs needs to be revised as security alone is estimated at £200m and is set to rise.
March 7th, 2010 at 5:16 pm
Thanks Ash for getting to that point first!
Simon, we’re ignoring you because you come out with the same tosh day-in, day-out. You accuse us of being UK-destroying separatists. You post wholly irrelevant youtube links about Obama being the new Stalin. I rarely bother reading your posts now because I found that you would refuse to answer our points but just go back to throwing the same, unfounded accusations at us.
If you were to raise new points we might tackle them. The fact that you have not really raised a new point since around September/October time means that we cannot be bothered wasting our time.
Until you do so, I will not be responding to you.
(Any visitors who wonder why this may be the case, just have a quick scan through the blogs since late July last year).
March 7th, 2010 at 7:52 pm
Simon,
For me and many others, the cost of a monarchy versus a republic is not an issue whilst the principle is at stake. I would still come to the same conclusions if the monarchy was point-blank free.
For you to continually offer debate over this point is incidental. Macro-economics dictate that the reason we have taxation is to control the amount of money in circulation. Paying for schools, hospitals, armed forced, roads and heads of state is a by-product of this principle. Check out Irving Fisher if you need more clarification. Matter closed.
“i love it when the media and political parties all work together and help defend the nation and the royal family. Doesn’t it make you all proud to be British?”
This is an outrageous slur which, no doubt, you will excuse yourself by claiming that it is meant as a joke. A bit like those offensive, racists comedians from the 1970s, perhaps.
The fact that expedient politicians such as Jack Straw suddenly tow the line when they are blessed with power is sufficient reason for me to believe that the whole panoply of government in this country is corrupt. The whole issue of patronage simply rewards subservience because the people who crave power have few scruples or principles. After all, I’d wager that soon after the aforesaid Mr Straw loses his seat in an election or retires from the Commons, he will appear in the guise of a Lord in the upper house.
In your case, Simon, I’d like to think that it is ignorance and a closed mind that prevent you from taking part in proper debate by offering constructive rebuttal to the points made by this and other contributors on this site.
Simply offering vacuous and triumphalist snorting does not enhance your argument one jot.
March 7th, 2010 at 10:02 pm
I personally think the monrachy does have to face the consequences of being a drain on public funds. £200m on security alone is absurd.
It is however the macroeconomic case against monarchy that is even more urgent. The letter to Mrs Windsor from the London School of Economics (LSE) is a damning verdict.
Although the LSE seem to be clueless about why Mrs W wouldn’t intervene with an elected governments budget, it proves they think a head of government should do so, and in doing so, possibly saving the country from going bankrupt.
March 7th, 2010 at 10:50 pm
@ Ash
Sure, £200 million at today’s prices would buy us a couple of brand new, decent sized acute hospitals each year, relatively speaking.
The principle of paying for something that we may not get value for money nor having a say in whom is appointed is a point where I think we agree strongly. However, the principle of an hereditary head of state that has no accountability and is exempt from many of the laws that the rest of us have to adhere to is of greater concern.
To take your point, unless we get FoI access, we will never be able to assess whether we do get value for money or not. If another person were head of state, I’d imagine that they would be keen to show the voting public where their money went and what value they were getting if only to protect the person concerned.
In addition, openness creates trust and can sometimes “keep the public off one’s back”. Remember Chris Smith “coming out” in 1983 and later becoming a Government minister? It did not harm his career one bit and many people would say “So what? Well done and good luck to you – now let’s deal with the real job of being an MP”.
I’d also expect the Government to be a little more forthcoming in their publicity to explain why this FoI exemption is necessary, especially when everyone else’s personal freedoms have been eroded considerably in the interests of anti-terrorism, law enforcement and centralisation of power over the past few of decades.
The current situation can only be a breeding ground for the conspiracy theorists who, in the absence of information, will fill that gap with their own interpretation.
March 8th, 2010 at 8:36 am
As for our figures on royal finances, we’re currently doing research and will amend our estimates as and when we’re ready to do so.
As has been pointed out time and again by others, it is not our fault we are left to guess how much the monarchy costs the taxpayer or that all the information about how much of our money is being spent on royals is not freely available to us. And, as has also been said above, the finances do not change the argument about whether or not we have a monarchy.
March 9th, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Graham
How many of your celebrity supporters have criminal records for matters such as dogging and assaulting apolice officer?
Try and be open, honest and transparent!
March 9th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
@Bruno
Further to Graham’s comment about trolling I’d just like to add that we also have a policy about people using multiple aliases. So please just decide – is it “Bobby”, “Paul” or “Bruno”?
Then please feel free to get stuck into the debate – how about you give us some solid reasons why you support our current constitutional arrangements?
March 9th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
St Bruno . What is all that nonsense, Man. We need relevance here !
March 9th, 2010 at 9:53 pm
Person 1 makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person 1
Therefore claim X is…. false????
March 10th, 2010 at 11:44 am
Bruno obviously didn’t get to see ;
http://podblanc.com/the-great-nazi-king-edward-viii-the-f%C3%BChrers-friend-1-3
I think that story eclipses any mud he might try to sling at Republic supporters.
March 10th, 2010 at 9:29 pm
Not forgetting ;
http://podblanc.com/the-great-nazi-king-edward-viii-the-f%C3%BChrers-friend-2-3
and of course ;
http://podblanc.com/the-great-nazi-king-edward-viii-the-f%C3%BChrers-friend-3-3
Just to complete the picture.