sphericalfox Posted 14 July 2014 Posted 14 July 2014 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/royal-family-granted-new-right-of-secrecy-2179148.html The Royal Family is to be granted absolute protection from public scrutiny in a controversial legal reform designed to draw a veil of secrecy over the affairs of the Queen, Prince Charles and Prince William. Letters, emails and documents relating to the monarch, her heir and the second in line to the throne will no longer be disclosed even if they are in the public interest. Sweeping changes to the Freedom of Information Act will reverse advances which had briefly shone a light on the royal finances – including an attempt by the Queen to use a state poverty fund to heat Buckingham Palace – and which had threatened to force the disclosure of the Prince of Wales's prolific correspondence with ministers. Lobbying and correspondence from junior staff working for the Royal Household and Prince Charles will now be held back from disclosure. Buckingham Palace confirmed that it had consulted with the Coalition Government over the change in the law. The Government buried the plan for "added protection" for the Royal Family in the small print of plans called "opening up public bodies to public scrutiny". Maurice Frankel, head of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, said that since the change referred to communications written on behalf of the Queen and Prince Charles it might be possible for "park keepers working in the royal parks" to be spared public scrutiny of their letters written to local authorities. The decision to push through the changes also raises questions about the sincerity of the Liberal Democrats' commitment to government transparency. In opposition, senior Liberal Democrats frequently lined up to champion the Freedom of Information Act after it came into force in 2005. Ian Davidson, a former member of Parliament's Public Accounts Committee (PAC), told The Independent: "I'm astonished that the Government should find time to seek to cover up royal finances. When I was on the PAC what we wanted was more disclosure not less. "Every time we examined royal finances we found extravagance and indulgence as well as abuse of expenses by junior royals. "Everywhere we looked, there were savings to be made for the Government. This sends the wrong message about public disclosure and accountability." Paul Flynn, another member of the committee, described the special protection for the Royals as "indefensible". He said: "I don't think it serves the interests of the public or the Royal Family very well." Mr Frankel said he believed that Prince Charles was the driving force behind the new law. "The heir to the throne has written letters to government departments in an attempt to influence policy," he said. "He clearly does not want these to get into the public domain." Later this month, lawyers for the Cabinet Office, backed by Prince Charles, will go to court to continue to resist Freedom of Information requests of ministers to publish letters written to them by the Prince of Wales. A spokesman for Buckingham Palace said that the change to the law was necessary because the Freedom of Information Act had failed to protect the constitutional position of the monarch and the heir to the throne. He explained that the sovereign has the right and duty to be consulted, to encourage and warn the government, and by extension, the heir to the throne had the constitutional right and duty to prepare himself for the role of King. "This constitutional position relies on confidentiality, so that all such correspondence remains confidential," he said. But he said that change would also mean that correspondence not covered by the absolute exemption would be made public 10 years earlier than under the current disclosure rules. The Palace's position was backed by Professor Vernon Bogdanor, research professor at King's College London. He told The Independent: "The essence of constitutional monarchy is that the Queen and other members of the Royal Family remain politically neutral. The Queen meets the Prime Minister once a week, when both are in London, to discuss government policy. "The heir to the throne has the right, and perhaps the duty, to question ministers on policy so as to prepare himself for the throne. Such discussions are only possible if they remain confidential. Otherwise the neutrality of the Queen and of the Prince of Wales could be undermined. "When the Queen meets the Prime Minister, no one else is present – not even the Queen's Private Secretary. For this reason, it is right that the Royal Family should be exempt from FOI." The Government claimed that the thrust of the changes announced yesterday would make it "easier for people to use FOI to find and use information about the public bodies they rely on and their taxes pay for". The Ministry of Justice intends to increase the number of organisations to which FOI requests can be made, bringing in bodies such as the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Financial Services Ombudsman, and the higher education admissions body UCAS, and also all companies wholly owned by any number of public authorities. In the public interest? The stories they didn't want us to know *In 2004 the Queen asked ministers for a poverty handout to help heat her palaces but was rebuffed because they feared it would be a public relations disaster. Royal aides were told that the £60m worth of energy-saving grants were aimed at families on low incomes and if the money was given to Buckingham Palace instead of housing associations or hospitals it could lead to "adverse publicity" for the Queen and the government. *A "financial memorandum" formalising the relationship between the sovereign and ministers set out tough terms on how the Queen can spend the £38.2m handed over by Parliament each year to pay for her staff and occupied palaces. *The Queen requested more public money to pay for the upkeep of her crumbling palaces while allowing minor royals and courtiers to live in rent-free accommodation. *As early as 2004 Sir Alan Reid, the Keeper of the Privy Purse, had unsuccessfully put the case to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for a substantial increase in the £15m-a-year grant to maintain royal buildings. *The Palace planned to go ahead with refurbishing and renting the apartment of Diana, Princess of Wales at Kensington Palace after it had lain empty since her death in 1997. *A letter exchange revealed a tussle over who has control of £2.5m gained from the sale of Kensington Palace land. Ministers said it belonged to the state, while Buckingham Palace said it belonged to the Queen. Wonder what they've got to hide, eh?
Fox92 Posted 14 July 2014 Posted 14 July 2014 Meh, don't like them anyway and this sadly comes as no surprise.
Rincewind Posted 14 July 2014 Posted 14 July 2014 For the likes of you and me anything goes. We are just pawns on life's chessboard and are the first in line to be sacrificed.
MooseBreath Posted 14 July 2014 Posted 14 July 2014 For the likes of you and me anything goes. We are just pawns on life's chessboard and are the first in line to be sacrificed. lol
Jon the Hat Posted 14 July 2014 Posted 14 July 2014 Show me a country where the correspondance of the head of state is available to public scrutiny? Seriously if you expect that you will be dissapointed. I also note the way that they assume the queen is somehow personally involved in attempts by some of her huge staff to find new ways to get funding. Honestly we should pay more to look after the buildings. Also, how is this a new right? We havent seen any of this correspondence ever, so this is in fact removing a loophole allowing a new right of access to something we never had.
MooseBreath Posted 14 July 2014 Posted 14 July 2014 The article is three and a half years old. People are having to dredge the archives to find criticisms of the government now.
Guest MattP Posted 14 July 2014 Posted 14 July 2014 The article is from January 2011 For the likes of you and me anything goes. We are just pawns on life's chessboard and are the first in line to be sacrificed. lol
Rincewind Posted 14 July 2014 Posted 14 July 2014 The article is three and a half years old. People are having to dredge the archives to find criticisms of the government now. You have lived too long in your ivory tower. You have missed out on some good stuff but as you are still in denial I'll leave you to it. I am wasting my time here. I will now just PM relevant news to those who will offer constructive criticism instead of criticism for the sake of it.
Itsthejoeker Posted 14 July 2014 Posted 14 July 2014 You have lived too long in your ivory tower. You have missed out on some good stuff but as you are still in denial I'll leave you to it. I am wasting my time here. I will now just PM relevant news to those who will offer constructive criticism instead of criticism for the sake of it. Bye then.
MooseBreath Posted 14 July 2014 Posted 14 July 2014 You have lived too long in your ivory tower. You have missed out on some good stuff but as you are still in denial I'll leave you to it. I am wasting my time here. I will now just PM relevant news to those who will offer constructive criticism instead of criticism for the sake of it. Don't give up now ken. I can't imagine Jesus going 'Oh, I've told a few people in Bethlehem I'm the son of God, can I just stay here with Mum and Dad now?' No. You gotta move on. You gotta spread the word. You gotta go to Nazareth, please. And that's, very much like you.
Rincewind Posted 14 July 2014 Posted 14 July 2014 Bye then. I am not leaving completely. I just have better tings to do There are many on here who are constructive in their criticism
Guest MattP Posted 14 July 2014 Posted 14 July 2014 You have lived too long in your ivory tower. You have missed out on some good stuff but as you are still in denial I'll leave you to it. I am wasting my time here. I will now just PM relevant news to those who will offer constructive criticism instead of criticism for the sake of it. No please noooooo! You have to spread the word, justice4jobseekers can't take off if it becomes an exclusive PM club, this is going global. What would DNO3 (vibrant, diverse, stiffer) do without a public forum?
lavrentis Posted 14 July 2014 Posted 14 July 2014 The more privacy people have the better, including the head of state.
Rincewind Posted 14 July 2014 Posted 14 July 2014 Despite your attempts Matt you are not the worst. That crown belongs to someone else. No news from DNO atm I'm afraid. There is still an active blog and Facebook page but further developments are dependent on what happens in the next stage of its progress.
Guest MattP Posted 14 July 2014 Posted 14 July 2014 The more privacy people have the better, including the head of state. Absolutely. It's quite scary some people see this as a bad thing.
lavrentis Posted 14 July 2014 Posted 14 July 2014 Absolutely. It's quite scary some people see this as a bad thing. Just seems like people love having a cheap shot at our head of state, as if the Queen's job isn't hard enough already without all the moaners.
Rincewind Posted 14 July 2014 Posted 14 July 2014 I agree in a way but privicy should not be exclusive to the famous and powerful. Jimmy Saville and the BBC? A judge presiding over a sex scandal case (now stepped down) who had personal contact with the accused. And if you look at a couple of dodgy sites you will be put in the slammer. Not exactly equal for all.
Jon the Hat Posted 14 July 2014 Posted 14 July 2014 Absolutely. It's quite scary some people see this as a bad thing. Honestly I can see people who think the Monarchy is some evil influence want to believe this is masking something of importance, but really Prince Charles writnig letters about shite achitecture and the failures of the planning system is not have all that much influence is it?
Jon the Hat Posted 14 July 2014 Posted 14 July 2014 I agree in a way but privicy should not be exclusive to the famous and powerful. Jimmy Saville and the BBC? A judge presiding over a sex scandal case (now stepped down) who had personal contact with the accused. And if you look at a couple of dodgy sites you will be put in the slammer. Not exactly equal for all. Ok you have gone to far there Ken. Baroness Butler-Sloss may have appeard to be too close to the establishment as a retired Judge, and sister of Thatcher's home secretary, and we can all understand the concern. You ahve however no basis whatsoever to make the accusation that she "had personal contact with the accused". Who exactly do you think has been accused in an inquiruy not yet started? Her history as a judge suggested she would have been a fantastic Chair, however the response from survivors groups has meant this is not the case.
The Horse's Mouth Posted 14 July 2014 Posted 14 July 2014 For the likes of you and me anything goes. We are just pawns on life's chessboard and are the first in line to be sacrificed. lol
Jon the Hat Posted 14 July 2014 Posted 14 July 2014 known to be associate? Of who? Who is accused? Have you read something the rest of us haven't?
Captain... Posted 14 July 2014 Posted 14 July 2014 Honestly I can see people who think the Monarchy is some evil influence want to believe this is masking something of importance, but really Prince Charles writnig letters about shite achitecture and the failures of the planning system is not have all that much influence is it? If it doesn't have much influence why the need for secrecy? I would like to know what Charles is lobbying the government for, and anyone else lobbying the government, it is in the public interest and could even gain more support. Personally I would like to see the royal family get more involved in the politics of this land rather than just reading out pre-prepared statements from the Government. Likewise I think it is in the public interest to know what our tax payers money is being spent on, and it should be open to scrutiny. I don't think we should be privy to all official correspondence, but I don't see why they should be exempt when all other public funded bodies are open for scrutiny.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.