23 Nov 2009
As you may know, the government recently announced plans to remove the ‘public interest test’ on FOI requests relating to the monarchy. This will effectively mean a blanket ban on access to royal documents. For background information on these proposals see our Freedom of Information page.
Following the launch of our campaign earlier this month, Lynne Jones MP has tabled the following Early Day Motion:
That this House disagrees with the proposed removal of the public interest test for access through the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to information held by public authorities relating to the Royal Household’s function and activities, and with the blanket ban on accessing Royal documents that would result; and instead supports the removal of the exemption of the Royal Household from the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
EDMs are an excellent way to raise awareness of an issue, galvanise support and gain media coverage.
Please ask your MP to sign EDM 83 today - you can email them right now via writetothem.com.
Remember – this EDM is not about abolishing the monarchy or criticising the Windsor family. It’s about the principle of political transparency, which all MPs from all parties should be able to support. Even if your MP has responded negatively when you’ve raised concerns about the monarchy in the past, it is still worth asking them to sign the EDM.
Put simply, if your MP supports the royal FOI ban then they support secrecy at the heart of government. You have a right to an explanation if this is the case.
Steve Smedley, a co-ordinator of Suffolk Coastal Republic, has drafted the following excellent template letter which you may wish to use or adapt.
Please don’t cut and paste the template letter in its entirety. It’s much more effective to put your request in your own words – see our tips on writing to MPs for more information.
This entry was posted on Monday, November 23rd, 2009 at 6:10 pm and is filed under freedom of information. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Comments are now closed.Dear [Member of Parliament],
I am writing to urge you to sign Early Day Motion 83 which calls for the royal exemption from the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act to be removed.
The government is proposing legislation that will remove the public interest test from requests for disclosure of documents relating to the monarchy and the royal family. The monarchy’s FOI exemption will then become absolute. If they so choose, the royal family can continue to lobby ministers in their own interests and in the interests of others without them ever being made accountable to the public. That’s not right.
The public is entitled to know, for example, the full extent of Prince Charles’s secret lobbying to ministers on health, architecture, education, and the environment, or the secret lobbying to secure increases to the Civil List payments.
These issues are very much in the public interest and I’m sure you will agree that, in a democracy, public interest must always be paramount. Public interest should never be made secondary to the interests of the Windsor family and the government.
I also ask you to pass on these concerns to the Secretary of State for Justice, Jack Straw, and to ask him to review the government’s inappropriate and undemocratic legislation.
I strongly support the proposal laid out in EDM 83 and I think you should support it as well. If you haven’t signed EDM 83 yet, I urge you to do so.
Yours sincerely,
[Your name]
Facebook
Twitter
November 24th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
…and we all know why the royals want to be exempt, don’t we…always have been and always will be a bunch of leeches…
November 24th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Guys, I’m a supporter of Republic, but please don’t abuse writetothem.com. They are very clear that they will not forward on pro-forma letters, with good reason. See http://www.writetothem.com/about-qa#formletters.
Supporters of Republic are clearly thoughtful people, and no doubt smart enough to write their own letter. If you leave the pro-forma up there, you’re not helping your cause.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
@StuartB
Thanks for your comments. We work closely wth MySociety, the organisation behind writetothem.com, and have absolutely no intention of “abusing” their system.
The letter, drafted by a Republic activist, is there for supporters to use or adapt as they see fit.
There’s no need to remove the letter altogether but as a reassurance, I’ll add a line asking people not to cut and paste it in its entirety.
November 24th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
For the detailed argument for a constitutional monarchy, see the chapter ‘Chainsaw Massacre’ in my book ‘The Abolition of Britain’. I haven’t time to rehearse all these arguments here, alas. But the main point is that the monarch is like the King on a chessboard, his or her main power exercised by occupying a square that politicians would otherwise occupy, and in a damaging way.
Most Republican arguments are puerile and ignorant recitations of false points – cost, luxury, authority. Those who object to inheritance as a way of choosing an essentially powerless person (who would be hugely powerful if elected) should be asked if they object to inheritance in all cases (such as property from their parents). In that case, they are in effect objecting to private property and the family – which is a political position – but one which has led to endless misery when applied. Divine Right is a specific political concept, long abandoned. Christians do believe that the anointed Monarch is chosen by God, and is his minister (see ‘the Prayer for the Queen’s Majesty’ in the Book of Common Prayer’). But Christians believe in divine providence in all things, guiding us through prayer and conscience to do that which is right and just. This does not mean that God can be cited as the authority for a wicked or despotic act.
Then there is the need for a personal figure to whom the armed forces, the Church, the civil service and the judiciary should be able to owe non-partisan loyalty. Where the head of government and the head of state are combined, his servants (see especially the Nixon episode) are in effect above the law in actions they take on his orders, and have no alternative loyalty to which they can appeal.
I might add that any serious constitution is restrained by tradition and hierarchy from wild demagogic and short-term acts, and needs an embodiment of the rule of law and the national religion. Elected politicians cannot provide this.
A few years ago, we were being told by republicans that the Speaker could take over the role of head of state. Does anyone argue this now?
A good deal of the discussion is about not being diverted by conventional wisdom – as over the Houseof Lords which – precisely because it is not elected – is much the more independent and questioning of the two chambers of Parliament.
Those who criticise the Queen for having been too passive in recent years undoubtedly have a point. But this is not an argument against monarchy. The Queen, when she ascended the throne, probably could not imagine the trials she would have to endure and had not been trained for them. Her successor is differently placed and I expect a constitutional crisis in his reign.
My point about North Korea and East Germany (or Iran and China) is that a Republican constitution is not an automatic guarantor of liberty in itself, and should not be offered as such. It is an invitation to knee-jerk fashionable republicans to go back to first principles and think about what they are saying.
Few of them have. Those that have are generally radical and atheistical socialists who grasp that a constitutional monarchy is a major obstacle to their aims.
- PETER HITCHENS (in response to ‘republicans’ on his blog)
November 24th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
@Lewis
Thank you for cutting and pasting from Peter Hitchens’s blog. It’s a shame you couldn’t provide your own arguments in your own words.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
I just though it would be a good way to stimulate debate, as many people on here were interested in Peter Hicthens’s recent Mail on Sunday column. It’s a shame that you are always quite rude, abrasive and condescending to me when I do nothing to provoke it.
All the best
Lewis
November 24th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
To Lewis,
I suppose that saying: “…Most Republican arguments are puerile and ignorant recitations of false points…”. So: you really believe that when you say: “…It’s a shame that you are always quite rude, abrasive and condescending to me when I do nothing to provoke it” is not strictly true, is it, Lewis?
I am open to everyone’s opinions on here; or anywhere else for that matter…as long as it doesn’t get personal, as this doesn’t get anyone anywhere.
T Stuart B,
Unfortunately, I have copied and pasted the pro-forma; due to the fact that I find this convenient, but also due to the fact that I have a broken collarbone and broken ribs, which makes it difficult to write my own statement at this time (saying that – it would probably have been just as quick as writing this!).
November 25th, 2009 at 12:39 am
Peter Hitchens has said that most of the arguments for republican arguments are “puerile ,(childish), recitations of false points— cost,luxury ,and authority. These remarks are simply a misuse of the English language ,and are just not true. Also, Peter Hitchens remark about the desirability of Inheritance in general is too simplistic. Obviously the value of inheritance and family is valuable ,and a Fact of Life . However it is all a matter of degree and excess. As a republican, I believe that it is completely wrong for any citizen to inherit an excess of wealth ,unfair advantage or privilege. This obviously includes royalty, but also some others . I believe in taxing those with an excess for a number of reasons. However, the issue of royal inheritance of the position of head of state should not be confused or entangled with the general matter of inheritance in our society. Royal inheritance of position is wrong,for a number of sound republican reasons. It is not comparable with the fact that “Joe Public” and his children inherit certain things from their relatives.
November 25th, 2009 at 10:54 am
Excellent template letter from SC Republic.
I have sent mine off. I also decided to add in:
“Particularly in these times when Parliament is receiving a lot of understandable criticism about its openness and transparency, it must not bring in new rules to make the public interest secondary.”
I urge everyone to write to their MP about this – it only takes two minutes and as somebody who used to work for an MP, I know this kind of thing really does make a difference.
November 25th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Second JJ72’s comment. I’ve sent off my letter as well. Not sure if he’ll take any notice though. I could’nt even name anything he’s done for constituents.
November 29th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
“[Republicans] who object to inheritance as a way of choosing an essentially powerless person…should be asked if they object to inheritance in all cases (such as property from their parents).” Lewis – courtesy of P Hitchens.
This is an absurd argument and a non sequitur. It does not address the issues of the FOI act either.
Come and see me. I am an hereditary dentist. I have inherited mystically all the necessary skills from my forbears. I was born to be a dentist and consider it to be my duty. Although a multi-millionaire, I am paid vast sums yearly from the public purse, so it matters not one jot if you come for treatment. Curiously, I am the only dentist; so you actually have no choice. An army of scribbling idiots seek to justify my position twenty-four hours a day. They all have bad teeth.
November 29th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
…very clever analogy, Tim!…=o\
November 29th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Well it drives you nuts Stephen!
I have again sent my letter off to my knee-crooking MP, who in the past has replied – “I believe that Queen Elizabeth II has shown the benefits of the monarchy perfectly” – and who thinks, among other things, that Charles is far sighted – “I have immense admiration for the work Prince Charles has done…he gives voice to the views of millions of people across the country and is often ahead of his time in espousing different ideas.”
My MP and I have corresponded over a raft of issues concerning the monarchy, including the FOI Act, and also the one-colour bishops who haunt the House of Lords. He is extremely unlikely to sign up to this. But it does not stop me writing and forcing him to reply to me.
Other gems from him replying to issues I raised concerning the FOI Act include:
“The Monarchy’s role is to be impartial and provide stability and continuity in times of difficulty. I do not think it right to risk undermining this institution for what I believe would be of minimal benefit to the public interest.”
“…the strength and usefulness of the Monarch to the constitution is
that she can provide impartial and confidential advice to the Prime Minister.”
“The Queen has been on the throne almost as long as the Prime Minister has been alive and has seen all the changes in our political and economic life, and her advice is in this sense unique.”
No doubt he will continue to smile his well-heeled smile and looks forward to the day he finally shuffles off to glue himself to a seat in the Upper House…
December 1st, 2009 at 12:51 am
I am pleased to say that I received a phone call from my MP this afternoon confirming that he has signed the EDM.
All ye of little faith!
The ball is finally rolling!
December 1st, 2009 at 1:35 am
Interesting to see the MPs who signed up to that EDM so far. Mostly labour, a few lib dems and SNP. Not seen any Tories yet thankfully, if one does sign up they may get a good telling off by the party. Although i can imagine having ones name added to a list containing such rebels would concern many
December 1st, 2009 at 3:29 pm
I emailed my MP, Glenda Jackson and asked her to support EDM 83. As I know she is republican, I presumed she would and I also asked her to try and foster support. She sent me a personal letter in reply and (rather patronisingly I thought) said she ‘appreciated my taking an active interest in this legislation’. She will ‘continue to support the issue whenever appropriate’ whatever that means.
December 5th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Dear Jennifer,
That does not seem to be a very “full blooded ” response does it? Hopefully she will not let you down. There does not seem to be too much willingness to commit. Exactly what does she mean by “appropriate ” ? , I wonder. It would be valuable to know a bit more detail about the actual “republicanism ” of some M.P s , especially ex actors/media personnel. It might be wrong of me, but I am just a wee little bit suspicious of their motive sometimes. ‘Tis a pity your M.P. is not Benjamin Zepahaniah or Dennis Skinner.