22 Dec 2009
The news this morning that the information commissioner has ruled in favour of disclosure of royal correspondence could have profound repercussions for the monarchy and the British constitution.
When the Freedom of Information Act was introduced the monarchy was simply not recognised as a public body, so the remit of the act failed to get past the gates of Buckingham Palace. Correspondence between the palace and public authorities that are covered by the act was exempted under section 37. There was, however, a public interest test, meaning that if it could be demonstrated that it was in the public interest to release information then the information must be released.
There is a clear public interest to be served by full disclosure of royal documents. Two present examples illustrate the case. Firstly, the palace is currently negotiating a multimillion-pound hike in the civil list, which is due to be renewed next year. We must know why and for what reason the palace thinks it fit to demand more public money while public spending is being squeezed like never before. Secondly, Prince Charles, who is getting ever closer to the throne, threatens a major constitutional crisis with his continued political activity.
Republic, along with numerous journalists, has been submitting dozens of FOI requests over the past few years and, despite some successes, has been rebuffed on almost all occasions. Now, in what could be a major landmark decision, the Information Commissioner’s Office has recognised that disclose would “enhance public awareness and understanding of the funding and accommodation arrangements of the royal household” and would “increase transparency and accountability”. Indeed, and why not? This is public money being spent on a public institution.
This decision couldn’t come at a better time. In June, Gordon Brown announced his intention to change the FOI act, to remove the public interest test and so introduce an absolute exemption for the royals from freedom of information rules. The official reasoning for this change is an extraordinary piece of double-speak. To quote the Ministry of Justice: “It has become clear that those safeguards [against revealing information] are insufficiently robust to protect our current constitutional arrangements, and need changing.”
The government’s position is that royal “advice” must remain confidential because of “the need to maintain the political neutrality of the Queen in public affairs (its reality and appearance); this itself is fundamental to the UK system of constitutional monarchy”.
Read that again. A fundamental part of our constitution is to maintain the appearance of regal impartiality. As a consequence all correspondence must remain secret. The same argument has been made in relation to Prince Charles. As the Guardian revealed again, Charles is up to his neck in political lobbying and attempts at interfering with ministerial decision making. He is not impartial – he has a very clear political agenda. It is his mission to change government policy, and yet he has a constitutional guarantee that his attempts to do so will be kept secret for the sake of maintaining the “appearance” of impartiality.
At present the damage Charles can do is somewhat limited. That may not always be the case. Elizabeth Windsor is 83, Charles could be king any day now. Once installed he has far more opportunity to influence policy, particularly if “his” government is a Conservative one and so less willing to pick a fight with the palace.
It is no wonder then that the government wants to change the law to protect the royals. With Charles nearing the throne they are no doubt terrified that more decisions from the information commissioner will be made in favour of disclosure, leading to revelations that could threaten support for the monarchy. In that sense the Justice Ministry is right: more secrecy is required to protect our current constitutional arrangements. But surely the response to that is not more secrecy, but a new constitution, one that isn’t afraid of freedom of information.
Facebook
Twitter
December 24th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
The less secrecy there is about the monarchy, the better. I think they have a right to some degree of privacy, as we all have. However there are many things which have been “swept under the carpet” , which should be exposed .
December 27th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Just a thought. With the govt supporting ID cards, ever more CCTV cameras and a compulsary DNA database, supporters of these monstrosities, including govt ministers and Labour backbenchers often come out with the same old “If you’ve nothing to hide, you’ve nothing to fear”. Surely if they’re suggesting that an opponent of ID cards is up to no good simply because he wishes to not have his ID kept on a central register, then how come the same argument is not being made against the royals regarding FOI requests? After all, if they’ve nothing to hide….
December 27th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
There has obviously been some sort of jiggery-pokery conducted in secret already. Why else would Gordon be planning on vetoing the recommendations of the Information Commissioner? It flies in the face of everything a so called man-of-the-people should stand for. Maybe he’s being bombarded with the infamous “Spider” Memos from you know who.
December 30th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Under the 30 years rule, we can read some of the papers that relate to Mrs T in 1979. However, the Guardian today has an editorial, Let the Sunshine In, about the FOI and some exemptions, namely files on Jeremy Thorpe, Anthony Blunt – and Prince Charles’ ‘future career’ (sic). Some of the comments point out that the default position in the US is that everythings is open to public scrutiny, here we have to be glad to pick up crumbs from NewLab’s table.
Although I was pleased with the Information Commissioner’s ruling, I thought the establishment would close ranks so we couldn’t read this correspondence. Lo and behold, GB is going to use his veto. Presumable he has listened to the palace instead of us again.
January 5th, 2010 at 8:56 am
@ Jennifer
I have to say that as a skeptic about government I suspect that this is a case of having one’s cake etc – the information commissioner allows the information on the basis that GB will veto it.