Royal secrets withheld under revised information rules
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
enlarge
Members of the public and journalists will be banned from seeing the contents of secret documents on the Cabinet and Royal Family under measures quietly announced by Gordon Brown last week.
The Prime Minister's reforms on improving parliament contained a little-noticed plan to block Freedom of Information requests on Cabinet papers, even if there is a public interest case.
The blanket exemption, which will be seen as a retrograde step in access to information and transparency, also applies to documents relating to members of the Royal Family.
The publication of Cabinet papers and Royal Family documents are currently subject to a 30-year-rule. Anyone can use an FOI request, in the public interest, to ask for the documents to be published within those 30 years. Requests can be blocked by a ministerial veto – as was the case in the demand for Cabinet minutes of discussions in the run-up to the Iraq war. But FOI requests for Royal papers have been successful.
The change ends the public interest FOI option, however, and a blanket exemption is in place to "protect constitutional conventions".
A commission set up by Mr Brown and headed by Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre recommended reducing the current 30-year-rule to 15. Mr Brown has decided on a 20-year-rule, which was announced last week. All documents will be released under the 20-year-rule.
Graham Smith, of the anti-monarchy campaign Republic, said: "We have been successfully using freedom of information to raise questions about Royal use of public funds and resources and to question [Prince] Andrew's role as trade ambassador. It appears they would prefer to remain in secrecy, and that begs the question why?"
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
We need a democratically elected head of state. The monarchy is the cause of the class system. Our pessimistic outlook on life is a symptom of the fact we feel, as the general public , power is taken from us and given to the establishment. Get rid of titles and unelected 'Lords' - they have not earned their elite status - they have usually paid someone off, or performed some sort of favour for those in power.
A few shows of pageantry a year is not a good enough trade-off for the damage done by the class system.
No wonder we treat our politicians the way we do. They are actually not a bad bunch. But because we feel as 'commoners' we aren't entitled to a say, we feel our only option is to lash out at those we are 'allowed' to lash out at. The people we should really be angry at is those who really have the power - the royals, the Conservatives and the elite establishment that continue to have such a large grip on the running of this country.
Sort of the Lords first as they have a much more significant impact of our lives.
It came to light in the court case seeking to open the two royal wills that a secret practice direction had been created. (See 28 below)
I applied for this document under Freedom of Information in January 2008 and the application remains ongoing. Initially the Court Service denied there was any such practice direction. I pointed out that the Court of Appeal had confirmed the existence of the document in the judgement (see below), that the judgement confirmed that the document had been created outside any judicial process.
Following 15 months of denial of the existence of the document by the Court Service, notwithstanding responses on my part with evidence that there was such a document, I made a further fresh application direct to the Master of Rolls on 5 March 2009.The response I received denied the existence of the document not withstanding the Court of Appeal confirmed it did;
(quote) I also understand that you then made a freedom of information request and Mr. **** dealt with the same. Following an investigation into the matter he established that there is, in effect, no such practice direction and you were informed accordingly (quote)
I had consistently pointed out that the document I requested was the one referred to in the Court of Appeal hearing, and that I was not concerned for the purposes of the application what the document was called.
To date I have been given no indication of when I might expect a response, and my requests for an indication of a date appear from my perspective to be simply ignored.
I set out below three abstracts from the Court of Appeal judgement, one of which indicates that it is not certain that a hearing in respect of the wills even took place, a second that for me raises the question if there are beneficiaries who have not been advised of their bequests, and a third that sets out some information on the secret practice direction.
Abstract Court of Appeal Hearing: [2008] EWCA Civ 56 Before :
THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND AND WALES
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE LORD JUSTICE THORPE
and
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE LORD JUSTICE DYSON
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
Robert Andrew Brown
Appellant
- and -
(1) The Executors of the Estate of HM Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother
(2) The Executors of the Estate of HRH The Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon
(3) HM Attorney General
8. No public hearing took place of the two applications. It is not clear whether any hearing took place at all. Nor is it clear whether or not the former President provided reasons for making the orders. If she did they have not been made public.
28. Before and after the death of Princess Margaret there were discussions between the Palace, Farrers, the Attorney Generals Secretariat, and the Attorney General and the court which reviewed what Mr Hinks described as the practice of sealing royal wills. The Senior District Judge was involved who sought the views of the former President. Ultimately a quite lengthy document was agreed that was reviewed and approved by the former President. The process that this contained involved a system of checks and balances that was highly confidential. The primary object of the process was to protect the privacy of the Sovereign. Thus when the two applications came before the former President she had an understanding of the background that she would not otherwise have had.
40 The first three issues are interrelated and are of general public importance. Mr Hinks submitted to us that the reason why wills were open to public inspection was to ensure that effect was given to the wishes of the testator. No material was placed before us in support of such a submission other than a decision, over a century old, that supports the proposition, on the face of it a surprising proposition, that an executor owes no duty to inform a legatee of the terms of his legacy Lewis v Lewis [1904] Ch 656.
And the Idea of Andrew jaunting around the world telling investors how to run a business by investing in the UK is another sad joke; the fact that he's never had to worry about value for money in his life aside, we are not even allowed to get access to information on how he's performing (or under-performing, more like).
(Mandatory) Flu vaccine contains squalene oil as an adjuvant.
Micropaleontologist Dr. Viera Scheibner conducted research into the adverse effects of adjuvants in vaccines and wrote: Squalene ?contributed to the cascade of reactions called ? Gulf War syndrome. GIs developed arthritis, fibromyalgia, lymphadenopathy, rashes, photosensitive rashes, malar rashes, chronic fatigue, chronic headaches, abnormal body hair loss, non-healing skin lesions, aphthous ulcers, dizziness, weakness, memory loss, seizures, mood changes, neuropsychiatric problems, anti-thyroid effects, anaemia, elevated ESR (erythrocyte sedimentation rate), systemic lupus erythematosus, multiple sclerosis, deadly Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, Raynaud?s phenomenon with paroxysms of lack of blood in fingers and toes in fingers and toes, Sjorgren?s syndrome with blurred vision, chronic diarrhea, night sweats and low-grade fever.