UK judges: Gov't must hand over Charles' letters

[dipsydoodle]

Source: Associated Press

LONDON (AP) — The British government must hand over confidential letters to ministers from Prince Charles, judges ruled Tuesday — a decision that could shed light on the opinionated heir to the throne's attempts to lobby politicians.

Three judges on a freedom of information tribunal decided that it is in the public interest "for there to be transparency as to how and when Prince Charles seeks to influence government."

The ruling comes in response to requests by The Guardian newspaper, which has been asking for seven years for the letters to be released.

Several government departments had refused to divulge them, arguing it might breach unwritten constitutional rules on the relationship between the monarchy and the government, and that it would discourage the prince from speaking frankly.

Read more: http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-09-18/uk-judges-govt-must-hand-over-charles-letters

[mwooldri]

1. Good.

If Price Big Ears wants to take it up as a constitutional law issue - let him do so. By him doing so it helps out with the constitution... by turning the unwritten to written.

Besides, I think Her Majesty might pull him aside and tell him not to make a big fuss about it, and that he can speak his mind anyway.

[defacto7]

2. So what?

Who would listen to him anyway?

Why shouldn't he write letters if he wants? The problem would be if the ministers actually listened to his advice.

It's stupid newspaper flash hype Murdock style. Who cares.

[renate]

3. well, that's probably too bad

Charles seems to be pretty progressive on a lot of issues. But I suppose it's the principle of thing, and I can't really disagree with the idea that somebody with even a peripheral actual role in government should be as transparent as anybody else. On the other hand--does he have an actual role? I thought that only the Queen couldn't vote, and that the members of the royal family stay out of politics more for purposes of PR than out of any actual requirement. Charles is maybe, strictly speaking, a private citizen when it comes to writing letters to the editor or letters to ministers, and if private citizens get privacy, so should he.

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. No, he's not "progressive on a lot of issues"

He can be quite reactionary. Possibly what some would think of as 'progressive' is his opposition to GM food - but, since his scientific understanding is awful (eg his support for homeopathy), his opinion on such matters really shouldn't be listened to. He's not just a private citizen - he's a major landowner, especially in Cornwall, and government ministers don't dare treat his letters as 'just another private citizen':

Even if this batch of letters is published, ministers last year imposed a blanket ban on the prince's correspondence being disclosed in the future, even if publication is in the public interest. You'd almost think they've got something to hide – something, for instance, like the prince trying to influence government policy. In fact, thanks to the information commissioner, we already know that he's routinely consulted on legislation which might affect the Duchy of Cornwall.

Documents released earlier this year show that the then fisheries minister, Huw Irranca-Davies, wrote to the prince's private secretary in 2008 enclosing two copies of a draft marine and coastal access bill. He highlighted clauses which would require the prince's consent and got a response a couple of months later, informing him that "the Prince of Wales is content with the bill". This archaic formula is troubling in a democracy – many of us might not be "content" with proposed legislation but we don't have a veto over it – but it isn't even as if the prince confines his correspondence with ministers to Duchy matters. In 2009, it was revealed that he had written to ministers in eight government departments over a three-year period.

The tribunal which ruled in favour of disclosure heard that the prince has lobbied on "holistic" medicine, genetically modified crops, cuts in the armed forces, architecture and agricultural policy. It doesn't take much ingenuity to guess his views on any of these subjects, which are doubtless typical of a socially conservative landowner with a prejudice against science. In their 126-page ruling, the three judges conceded that Charles's activities "are not neutral and in a number of respects have been controversial".

But the point isn't the prince's political views, reactionary though they may be. It's that he habitually abuses his position by lobbying ministers at all; I've heard from former ministers who were astonished by the speed with which their first missive from Charles arrived, opening with the phrase: "It really is appalling". And Charles doesn't write in the guise of an ordinary citizen, politely drawing attention to a matter of concern. He knows that his letters go "to the top of the pile" and are "treated with great reverence" in the words of Paul Richards, a Labour special adviser.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/18/prince-charles-memo-ruling-significant