republic royal secrets report · royal secrets the lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur...

ii

Republic is a membership-based pressure group campaigning for the abolition of the monarchy and its replacement with a directly elected Head of State.

We represent all Britain’s republicans, bringing the case for a republic to a wider audience while scrutinising the actions of the Royal Household. We are strictly non-party political and have the support of over 35,000 republicans.

We are a democratic organisation, led by our members and underpinned by a set of core principles. We are an inclusive movement, with members and supporters from across the political spectrum and from a diverse range of backgrounds.

Published by Republic December 2015

You are welcome to copy, translate, reproduce and publish all or any of the content of this book provided you adhere to media licenses where stated, do not delete from or add to it, nor charge for it, except to recover the actual cost of publishing. It remains the copyright of Republic.

Images and photos are licensed for use by Republic, or published under Creative Commons licenses as prescribed by the original authors and artists, and may be copied and reproduced in accordance with these licenses.

Cover image: Allen Watkin on Wikimedia Commons / CC BY-SA 2.0 / Derivative !

Republic Campaign Ltd is a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee operating under the name ‘Republic’. Registered number: 05891072. Registered address: Suite 14040, 145-157 St John Street, London, EC1V 4PY.

www.republic.org.uk

iii

With special thanks to Republic’s Investigations Team

iv

Thank you to our donors

Republic wishes to thank all the following people whose support for the Royal Secrets Appeal made this report happen.

Adam Coffman

Alan Booth

Alan Chick

Aled Rowlands

Andrew Donelan

Andrew Norton

Ann Davies

Anna Best

Annie Tomkins

Anthony Russell

Aran Burton

Austin Wellbelove

Barbara Montague

Barry Latchford

Barry O'Connell

Benjamin Eckford

Bill Gilby

Bill Green

Brendan Harkin

Brent Smith

Brian MacNeil

Brian Rayner

Callum Bainbridge

Carmelo Carruba

Carole Smith

Charles Lockwood

Charlie Slade

Christopher Stead

Danny Barrs

Dave Rothwell

David Collins

David Leonard

Dennis Bate

Derek Jones

Derek Russell

Des Garrahann

v

Diego Benito Porras

Dominic Dudley

Dympna Le Rasle

Dr Emily Robinson

Dr Emlyn Corrin

Fiona McAuley

Frank Sullivan

Frederick Sulliwan-Wallace

Gareth Davies

Geof Nuttall

Geoffrey Read

George Hadjipateras

Gez Westover

Giorgio Miles

Glyn Whitley

Gordon Drummond

Guy Pinkham

Gwyndaf Ap Steffan

Harry Loney

Iain Montgomery

Ian A. Elliott

Ian Barnett

Ian Johnson

Ian Jones

Ian Thomas

Jack Knight

Jacob William Wood

James Hart

James Quinn

James Scott Patterson

Jamie Rothnie

Jenny Bushell

Jim McIntosh

Johanna Louw

John Hodgson

Dr John Leach

John Moore

John Oldfield

John Todd

John Twist

John V. Proust

Jonathan McAlroy

Joseph Winspear

Justin Seabrook

vi

Katrina Dick

Keith Torrie

Ken Bennett

Ken Ward

Kevin Maskell

Kevin O’Kelly

Kristian Dainton

Lee Smith

Lester Dinnie

Lewis A. Beach

Lex Pearce

Lukas Daniel Klausner

Luke Chatterton

Lynne Kingdon Booker

M. J. Turner

Malcolm J. Rice

Mark Rutherford

Matthew C. Martino

Matthew Morley

Mel Crowther

Michael Jamieson Mouat

Michael Lindström

Michael Prior

Mike Brigden

Mike Grayton

Mike McHugh

Mike Quinn

Mike O’Dwyer

Miles Kristian Howell

Natalie Rippingale

Neil Anderson

Neil Lawrence

Nicholas Sharp

Nick Fry

Nick Wall

Nigel Fordham

Nigel Higgs

Patrick Campbell

Paul Casey

Paul Chamberlain

Paul Kenny

Paul Nicholas Bellamy

Dr Paul Teed

Peter J. D. Savage

vii

Peter Osborne

Peter Robertson

Peter Sykes

Philip Peter

Phyllis Palmer

Ray Evans

Raymond Smith

Richard Beynon

Richard Fagence

Richard Langston

Richard Orchard

Richard Scholfield

Richard Tippett

Rob Cook

Robert & Linda Bentley

Robert Powell

Robert Vernie Dolman

Rory & David Honney

Russell Britton

Shaun Coster

Shaun Longhurst

Simon Linskill

Simon Luxton

Simon Philpott

Sophie Cummings

Stefan Haselwimmer

Dr Stephen Harbron

Steve Allison

Steve Ayland

Steven Lindsay

Steven Price

Suzy Gillett

Terence McManus

Trevor Hicks

Trevor Shields

Tuaira Eve

viii

Royal secrets

The Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Vivamus viverra lorem eros, ut eleifend dolor dapibus ut. Curabitur eu fermentum libero. Aliquam ut ante blandit, finibus massa eu, rhoncus mauris. Donec euismod urna a lobortis egestas. Integer bibendum nisi ac suscipit mollis. people Donec vehicula pretium cursus. .

Phasellus iaculis, magna sed ultricies lobortis, mi odio egestas enim, sed malesuada dui metus at nunc. Vestibulum hendrerit lacus ut dolor venenatis, a have sollicitudin justo tincidunt. Maecenas sollicitudin neque eu nisi consequat, sed gravida orci iaculis. Maecenas aliquet posuere lorem a suscipit. .

Morbi tristique blandit massa. Suspendisse at felis vel eros molestie egestas porta nec lorem. a Vivamus fermentum ac massa nec vulputate. Aliquam erat volutpat. Nam blandit, lacus nec aliquam sollicitudin, diam arcu ullamcorper ipsum, right in venenatis arcu lectus at eros. Fusce eu volutpat sapien. .

Nullam sit amet sapien semper, vulputate orci id, vestibulum erat. Etiam non mi non sapien elementum tincidunt at quis massa. Vestibulum maximus fermentum ante et malesuada. Duis mattis odio justo, vel efficitur purus to elementum eget. Donec et metus congue, faucibus dui vel, suscipit augue. Donec ut augue sit amet justo laoreet bibendum. Ut vitae tortor et justo hendrerit ultricies. Phasellus auctor arcu a urna mattis, ac finibus know dui sodales .

ix

Contents

Foreword 1

Introduction 2

How it works The ways royal secrets are kept and defended 5

What we know and don’t know The secrets that are being kept 24

Principles and standards in public life How the monarchy measures up 40

Why this matters: The impact of secrecy The reasons we should all care 47

Recommendations What needs to be done about royal secrecy 53

Appendix 56

Introduction

1

Foreword

It is a fundamental principle of any democratic society that we are all governed by the same laws. This is as true with freedom of information as it is with any other area of life. No one should be given special treatment under FOI law because of the family they were born into. Yet in Britain what is ostensibly dressed up as a legitimate need for confidentiality provides sweeping rights to secrecy for members of the Royal Family.

The Freedom of Information Act is only the most noticeable aspect of a web of official protection surrounding royal secrets. Whether it’s the Cabinet Office’s role as gatekeeper to royal information, the collusion between government and palace to keep royal wills under lock and key, or the secrecy of the Royal Archives: the Royal Household enjoys significant protection from scrutiny and accountability.

This is a real problem of principle and politics. We now know that the royals are routinely lobbying for their own agenda and to protect their own interests. This report also reveals that Prince Charles is sent all Cabinet papers, giving him unprecedented access to official information.

In a democracy the people have a right to know what our representatives are doing and the right to hold them to account. It is not acceptable to be asked to believe the monarchy are honest and above board, if there is reason to believe we can prove they are not.

Graham Smith, CEO Republic

2

Introduction

“This is the age of Edward Snowden, not Edward Windsor.” ~ Robert Phillips, John Campbell Lecture, 2015.

The monarchy is one of Britain’s most secretive institutions. Compared by one historian to the security services of the Cold War, the Royal Household jealously guards its secrets, whether around political interference, financial probity or private interests.

This report cannot reveal all those secrets. What it attempts to do is bring all the issues around royal secrecy together in one place, to assess the situation and ask some important questions about the secrets that are being kept and why. This report explains the principal ways in which secrecy is defended and asks key questions that urgently need answers. What is the impact of royal influence? In whose interests are royals acting? How are royals spending taxpayers’ money? Why are politicians so quick to acquiesce to royal demands for greater secrecy and a more favourable financial settlement?

This report outlines what we know and don’t know and sets the monarchy against standards in public life that are widely expected of our national institutions. Where the government argues secrecy is needed to protect the monarchy’s impartiality we argue that impartiality needs to be seen to be done and must be accountable when it fails. We cannot accept – as former Attorney General Dominic Grieve has suggested – that it is better to pretend the

Introduction

3

monarchy is impartial and beyond reproach rather than prove it is not. Not least because in a democratic society citizens must be able to trust their national institutions – not blindly but intelligently, a trust informed by scrutiny and access to information.

This is a work in progress. There is more to do and there are areas of royal secrecy this report doesn’t touch on, such as the relationship the palace has with the media and their own staff. And of course there remain many secrets still to be uncovered. Moreover the law is going backwards, with the changes to the FOIA made in 2010 now being followed by a more thorough review of the Act by the current government which is likely to make access to information harder to come by. This despite a previous commitment from David Cameron to: “extend transparency to every area of public life” and “throw open the doors of public bodies.”1

“To maintain secrecy is to stand against the demands of a more skeptical and less deferential public.”

More than anything this report represents a challenge. A challenge to the palace to come clean and open up, a challenge to MPs to take this issue seriously, to demand change from the government and the Royal Household. It is a challenge to the media to do more to expose royal secrets and search for the truth about royal

1 www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/78977/coalition_programme_for_government.pdf

4

power and probity. And it is a challenge to opponents of the monarchy to do more to bring royal secrecy to an end.

The question of royal secrecy also presents a conundrum for the monarchy. In this modern world of highly connected citizens and networks that circumvent traditional sources of information continued secrecy will gradually erode public trust in the institution. Yet the fear of transparency so apparent in the palace’s behaviour is very real. Open the doors to scrutiny and how many skeletons will fall out? To maintain secrecy is to stand against the demands of a more skeptical and less deferential public. To end the secrecy however, is likely to precipitate the end of the monarchy.

How it works

5

How it works

Royal secrecy is protected through a combination of law, official practice, royal influence and a protective political culture. These are all underscored by a hard-headed determination on the part of politicians and palace to shield the royals from prying eyes or legitimate scrutiny, highlighted most recently by the dogged determination of the government to fight the release of Prince Charles’s letters.

The law

In 2005, for the first time, the UK acquired a Freedom of Information law. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is an often under-appreciated but very significant constitutional innovation which gives citizens a legal basis upon which to demand access to official information. Anyone can request any information, no reason need be given and the government department or agency must respond to every request, even if to say no relevant information is held. The Act, in the words of former Home Secretary Jack Straw, has: “profoundly changed the relationship between citizens, and the media on the one hand, and the Government and public authorities on the other.”2

2 The Constitution Society, www.consoc.org.uk/tag/freedom-of-information-act/

6

During the drafting stage of the bill it was clear, even to FOI campaigners, that there would need to be exemptions to the law. It wouldn’t be wise, to take an obvious example, for the security services to be forced to reveal the details of their operations. So a series of exemptions were incorporated into the Act, to ensure that sensible judgements could be made about what information would be released and what information would be kept secret or confidential. In many cases these exemptions include a ‘public interest test’, which allows the exemption to be overruled if it is judged that the public interest is better served by disclosure (detailed guides on how the Act works are available via the websites of the Information Commissioner and the Campaign for Freedom of Information). This test was the key point upon which the fight for the release of Prince Charles’s letters hinged.

“The consequence of this is that citizens have no right to contact Britain’s Head of State or her officials to demand the

disclosure of information about decisions made or the operation of the office of Head of State.”

Another question that was raised during the drafting of the new law was the scope of the Act. Beyond the obvious government departments what public bodies and organisations should be covered? This question was answered by the inclusion in the Act of a schedule that lists all the public authorities and categories of public bodies that would be subject to FOI rules. The list is extensive and includes doctors’ surgeries, universities, local councils, police forces and the BBC. Heather Brooke makes the point in her book Your Right to Know that in the US: “…any organisation that receives more than 50 per cent of its budget from

How it works

7

public funds is classed as a public authority under state FOI laws.” Yet in the UK each body must be ‘specifically identified’, whether within broad categories (such as schools or police), or individually named. As Brooke says: “the vast majority of organisations … must be [explicitly] included in the Schedule 1 list … for the Act to apply.”3

Protecting royal secrets

In the context of the FOIA royal secrecy is protected in two important ways. Firstly the list of public bodies covered by the Act does not include the monarchy or Royal Household. The household is generally accepted to mean members of the royal family plus their staff. As is often the case with the monarchy the distinction between what is public and what is private is often hard to pin down. Some would argue that the Royal Household is private, yet clearly there is an institution – the monarchy – that serves a public purpose. Yet the Schedule fails to recognise the institution of monarchy at all. It simply makes no mention of it. The consequence of this is that citizens have no right to contact Britain’s Head of State or her officials to demand the disclosure of information about decisions made or the operation of the office of Head of State.

The second line of defence for the royals relates to information they send to public bodies that are covered by the Act. Where information is transmitted between the Royal Household and a public body it is possible to ask the public body to disclose that

3 Heather Brooke, Your Right to Know, (2007), p.34

8

information. However there is a general exemption – section 37 of the Act4 – applied to all royal communications, meaning every request can be denied. So if you were to write to an NHS hospital, for example, and ask to see any letters they have received from Prince Charles on the issue of homeopathy, the hospital would be required to deny the request. If the Queen’s office wrote to the Prime Minister to lobby for more favourable royal funding that too would be exempted from disclosure under the FOI rules. By contrast were a private citizen, corporation or another public body to write to a hospital or to Downing Street that correspondence would be subject to the Act.

The public interest test

The exemptions from the Act were introduced to protect official secrets and a legitimate need for confidentiality. Yet a catch-all exemption was written into the law that cut off access to all communications with the Royal Household, regardless of its type, purpose or content. Whether it’s an invoice, email or personal letter, whether it’s a trivial communique or a direct attempt at political interference, it was all put off limits by this one exemption.

“The implication of this change to the FOIA is that the interests of the monarchy have been put before the interests

of the public.”

4 See Appendix A.1

How it works

9

There was one caveat however, the public interest test. To quote the Campaign for Freedom of Information, the public interest test: “refers to the interests of the general community or a section of it, as opposed to a purely private interest. It does not mean “what the public is interested in” or curious about.” 5 The campaign’s guidelines list a number of reasons disclosure of information may be in the public interest, such as ensuring that: “there is adequate scrutiny of the decision making process; authorities are accountable for the spending of public money; any misconduct is exposed; unfounded concerns about the authority are dispelled.”

It was under this test that the Guardian sought publication of letters written by Prince Charles to government ministers. The paper wasn’t alone in trying to get access to these letters, they were simply the most determined to see the case through to the end. It is likely that the waves of requests crashing against the government’s door gave rise to fears that the FOIA would eventually give way to a wholesale disclosure of royal correspondence and other archived secrets. Consequently in 2010 the Labour government introduced a bill that would remove the public interest test from the royal exemption. The new rules came into force under the newly-elected coalition government that same year.

The implication of this change to the FOIA is that the interests of the monarchy have been put before the interests of the public. The public can no longer expect to adequately scrutinise decisions

5 Campaign for Freedom of Information, www.cfoi.org

10

made where there has been royal influence, or hold officials properly to account for royal spending of public money.

Limits of the Act

A further complication which adds to the veil of secrecy is the failure of government to properly account for all the relevant expenses or to keep records. For instance, the estimated annual cost of the monarchy is far higher than the official figure because many of the individual costs are met by other public bodies, such as police forces and local councils. Political interference is also hard to gauge because a great many meetings and discussions would be held in private, without minutes and without correspondence. We do know that Prince Charles meets senior politicians on a regular basis, often at social occasions or meetings hosted by Clarence House where there are no records that are open to disclosure under the FOIA. The law, where it applies at all, only applies to recorded information that is readily accessible and relatively easy to compile.

So the FOIA has been geared toward protecting royal secrecy, not toward openness and honesty. Whether that’s in the law’s failure to acknowledge the monarchy as a public authority, the catch all exemption or the removal of the public interest test, every effort has been made to shield the Royal Household from public scrutiny.

How it works

11

Rules, practices and special treatment

Beyond the Freedom of Information Act there are other rules and practices that offer special treatment and privileges for the royal family. In particular this includes the sealing of royal wills and the secrecy of the Royal Archives.

Royal wills

According to David Leigh, writing in the Guardian newspaper in 2007, Buckingham Palace has claimed that the concealment of royal wills is “an ancient tradition.” 6 Yet in the words of constitutional law lecturer Michael Nash – also quoted in the Guardian – the claim that royal wills are traditionally secret is “absolute nonsense.”

“Not only did the authorities want to seal royal wills, they wanted to keep secret the manner in which this was done.”

In fact royal wills – as with all other wills – were made public until as late as 1910. That year a judge agreed to seal the will of Prince Francis in an effort to cover up a scandal. As far as anyone can tell there was no legitimate legal basis for doing so. It had been discovered upon his untimely death at the age of 39 that Francis had bequeathed jewels belonging to the royal family to his lover, Ellen Constance. The judge decided to protect the interests of the Royal Household and grant them their wish to effect a cover up.

6 David Leigh, The Guardian, www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/mar/27/monarchy.topstories3 (March, 2007)

12

Ever since then the palace and government have contrived to seal all royal wills, so that the public have no idea what is being inherited by whom. This is a complete departure from the law that applies to everyone else. When any non-royal dies their will is made public, no matter how rich, powerful or well-connected they might be.

The sealing of royal wills was achieved using a document called a “practice direction.” This detail was uncovered during the course of a legal case brought by Robert Brown, an accountant from Jersey who claimed to be the illegitimate child of Princess Margaret. When the existence of the practice direction was first revealed a request by Mr Brown to see it was denied. Not only did the authorities want to seal royal wills, they wanted to keep secret the manner in which this was done. During the case the President of the Family Division (a senior judge) remarked that he had never heard of a practice direction that was not in the public domain and indicated that he felt “very under-informed about the whole basis on which this jurisdiction has been exercised in the past.” 7 If the President of the Family Division is not sure what the basis is for keeping royal wills secret this raises serious questions about how royal secrecy is managed and maintained. A partially redacted copy of the practice direction was subsequently released to Mr Brown.

7 Christopher Knight, Panopticon, www.panopticonblog.com/2015/07/16/secret-practice-directions-and-royal-wills/, (July, 2015)

How it works

13

Former minister Norman Baker has said: “It is a matter of equity and transparency that people are able to see wills and it is quite wrong that the Royal Family is treated differently.” 8 The government's lawyers have admitted that: “There is no question of personal immunity from legislation for any member of the Royal Family other than the Sovereign.”9 Yet the whole family continues to benefit from this special treatment, with the Queen apparently ordering the sealing of wills as and when it suits her family’s interests to do so.

Archives

Britain has a long, rich and well-documented history. Our historians are fortunate to have access to over “1000 years of iconic national documents” stored at the National Archive.10 The Archive says its mission is to “collect and secure the future of the government record, from Shakespeare’s will to tweets from Downing Street, to preserve it for generations to come, making it as accessible and available as possible.” Yet that noble desire to open up our national history comes to a shuddering halt at the gates of Buckingham Palace. The archives of our Head of State and her predecessors are instead kept under lock and key in the Royal Archives, well away from unsympathetic eyes.

8 Sarah Knapton, The Telegraph, www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/4427050/Royal-wills-could-be-made-public-for-first-time.html, (February, 2009) 9 Public Accounts Committee - Written evidence from Republic, www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmpubacc/475/475we02.htm, (July, 2013) 10 National Archives, www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/about/our-role/

14

“Like the pre-1990s intelligence community, the Palace places entirely unreasonable restrictions on the work of

professional scholars.”

It is a routine tactic of the Royal Household to deliberately blur the line between what is public and what is private and this is certainly the approach to protecting the archives. While the archives contain official records they are treated as a private collection. According to the website of the National Archives, to access the Royal Archives requires a ‘letter of introduction’. The level of secrecy has been compared to that of the Cold War security services. Historian Philip Murphy has written: “Like the pre-1990s intelligence community, the Palace places entirely unreasonable restrictions on the work of professional scholars. It prohibits all but a small handful of “authorised” writers from viewing papers in the Royal Archives relating to the current reign.”11

Private, public and why we need access

In July 2015 the Sun newspaper published footage of the Queen, then aged 6 or 7, performing what appeared to be a Nazi salute.12 The reaction to the footage was mixed, but the story raised serious questions about wider access to royal archive material. The palace

11 Philip Murphy, The Conversation, www.theconversation.com/what-the-royal-family-can-learn-from-mi5-about-secrecy-45023, (July, 2015) 12 Tom Morgan and Jonathan Reilly, The Sun, www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/royals/6548665/Their-Royal-Heilnesses.html (2015)

How it works

15

made reference to: “Her Majesty’s personal family archive.”13 Yet, as Karina Urbach, from the Institute of Historical Research at the University of London, said to the Guardian: “The monarch meets the Prime Minister once a week on matters of public interest. Thus the Royal Family archives cannot be viewed as personal possessions. They concern matters of state.” She added that the archives are “a beautiful place to work but not if you want to work on 20th-century material … you don’t get any access to anything political after 1918.”14

The royal archives are not an innocent collection of love letters and family photos. They are the official record of the office of Head of State and for that reason they should be as open as the National Archives. Historian Alex von Tunzelmann tweeted at the time of the Sun’s scoop that keeping the archives secret: “is profoundly undemocratic. We need much greater access. We need to be grown up about it. The history of this country belongs to the public.”

Despite the claim to being a private affair the Royal Archive says its mission is to: “preserve the personal and official correspondence of former monarchs and of other members of the Royal Family past and present, as well as administrative records of

13 Tom Morgan and Jonathan Reilly, The Sun, www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/royals/6550287/Experts-back-The-Sun-and-want-Royal-Archives-opened.html, (2015) 14 Jamie Doward and Tracy McVeigh, The Observer, www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/18/royal-family-archives-queen-nazi-salute, (July, 2015)

16

the departments of the Royal Household.” 15 The archive is managed by staff of the publicly funded Royal Household16 and contains substantial official material relating to the conduct and actions of Britain’s heads of state. Moreover, in response to an FOI request by Republic, the National Archives have revealed that it “liaises closely with the Royal Archives and provides advice and support for its archival operations generally, based on the Historical Manuscripts Commission warrant [a royal warrant].” In other words, the publicly funded National Archives is helping to support a secret archive containing state records to which there is no public right of access.

Concealing recent history

Republic’s own investigations have revealed that the Royal Archives are used as a means of avoiding disclosure of recent historical documents. On at least six occasions since 1967 records have been transferred from the National Archive to the Royal Archive. 17 National Archive records are either released immediately, subjected to the 30 year rule or potentially available under freedom of information laws. Transferring them to the

15 www.royal.gov.uk/the%20royal%20collection%20and%20other%20collections/theroyalarchives/theroyalarchives.aspx 16

www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalHousehold/WorkingfortheRoyalHousehold/PeopleProfiles/AssistantArchivist.aspx 17 For the full list see Appendix A.2

How it works

17

Royal Archives means these records are completely and permanently beyond reach.

One of the sets of documents transferred is described as “Files detailing flying training for Royal Family, 1967-1984” – these were originally MOD records. Another of the transfers is of “Royal Correspondence” held by the Treasury Solicitor for 1993 – the year in which Charles and the Queen 'voluntarily' agreed to pay income tax following the Windsor castle fire. There was also correspondence between Customs and Excise and the Queen's great-great grandfather (1st Duke of Cambridge) transferred to the Royal Archives. The dates of the transfers and the information that is available suggest a deliberate attempt to protect the current members of the royal family from scrutiny and embarrassment. These are government records and should be subjected to precisely the same rules as any other archive material.

Taxes and funding

Republic’s report on royal funding, Royal Expenses: Counting the cost of the monarchy, puts the total annual cost to the taxpayer at £334m.18 That’s compared to the official cost of around £42m. The difference is the result of secrecy and obfuscation on the part of the palace and government.

Security

A substantial part of the £334m annual bill is an estimated £100m security budget for royal protection. That estimate comes from a

18 Republic, www.republic.org.uk/royalfinances

18

variety of press sources over the past ten years. When we consider that it covers round-the-clock protection for a dozen or so members of the royal family it’s not hard to believe. Yet the figure remains speculation, the government simply refuses to release an official figure. Ministers make the questionable claim that to reveal the total annual bill for royal security would itself risk the security of the royals. This seems to be a convenient excuse to cover up a grossly inflated budget.

In 2011 there were reports that officials were cutting security for Prince Edward and his wife and Prince Andrew’s daughters Eugenie and Beatrice.19 Edward and Andrew were fighting the decision, apparently believing that the taxpayer owed them their security. Yet these decisions are kept secret, there is no official confirmation and we are left to speculate about whether the security has been retained or not. Responding to reports about the taxpayer funding security for Princess Eugenie on her gap year travels former Liberal Democrat minister Norman Baker said in 2009: “The trouble with the Royal Family is that they seem to regard security officers as some kind of status symbol.”20 That being the case it is necessary to know whether security spending is the result of hard-headed analysis and proper spending decisions or the result of royal lobbying.

19 Andrew Pierce, The Daily Mail, www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1384476/Beatrice-Eugenie-stripped-police-protection-row-50k-cost.html, (May, 2011) 20 The Sun, www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/2377581/Taxpayers-hit-over-minor-royals-protection.html, (April, 2009)

How it works

19

Tax

In 1993, in response to the row over whether or not the taxpayer should pay for the restoration of Windsor castle, the Queen and Prince Charles agreed to voluntarily pay income tax. They are not legally obliged to do so. Prince Charles has since reported how much tax he pays, but the Queen keeps her voluntary contribution secret. Given that she is Head of State and that her tax is voluntary there is a clear public interest in knowing what her personal income amounts to and what tax she is paying on it. Yet the government simply insists this is a private matter and refuses to disclose details of a private arrangement made between the palace and the government.

While Prince Charles pays tax on his Duchy income the Duchy itself refuses to pay corporation tax. The reasons they give are contradictory and have been effectively challenged in evidence given to the Public Accounts Committee in 2014. 21 Yet the government refuses to reveal why the Duchy is not pursued over this very public tax avoidance.

Influence and a protective culture

It is the state’s default position to keep things secret and to protect its own institutions from prying eyes. In the words of Heather

21 Public Accounts Committee - Written evidence from Republic, www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmpubacc/475/475we02.htm, (July, 2013)

20

Brooke: “The UK has a long tradition of secrecy… going back at least seven hundred years.” Brooke points out that the Civil Service is only answerable to the government, not accountable to the public and that: “Cabinet secrecy arises from the Privy Councillor’s Oath.”22 This long tradition has developed into an instinctive refusal to disclose information. That instinct is in turn underwritten by a culture in which the Royal Household and their supporters are able to influence officials and processes to their advantage.

The government takes the protection of royal secrecy very seriously. This was evident in the extraordinary lengths they went to in defending their case against the Guardian, a legal battle that cost the taxpayer £400,000.

More recently the government has fought with the Daily Mail to obstruct the release of details of meetings Prince Charles had with ministers on the issue of the environment. The Mail’s request wasn’t under the Freedom of Information Act, but under the more permissible European Environmental Information Regulations. The government sought to re-classify the request, stating that the meetings were not about the environment and therefore fell under the FOIA. The Information Commissioner disagreed, saying: “Having studied the information in question, the Commissioner is satisfied that much of it does relate to both measures and activities

22 Heather Brooke, The Silent State, (2010), p.104

How it works

21

likely to affect both the state of the environment directly and factors which in turn affect those elements.”23 The case continues.

The Cabinet Office

The government’s determination to protect royal secrecy is also clear from official guidance to public bodies on how to deal with requests relating to royal communications. In that guidance, itself released under FOI rules, officials are told: “For all cases involving the Royal Household or family, you should contact [redacted]@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk . The Cabinet Office clears all such FOI with the Royal Household, and we are expected to consult them during all stages of the case, no matter how trivial the information may be.”24

“The government isn’t willing to leave anything chance and is prepared to invest considerable administrative resources

to defend the royals from serious scrutiny.”

Not only does the Cabinet Office involve itself in requests to other public bodies, but they liaise closely with the Royal Household, effectively giving the royals the opportunity to veto any disclosure of material. It is telling that they stress the need to consult the palace ‘no matter how trivial the information may be’. The

23 Chris Hastings, The Daily Mail, www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3337802/Greenwash-Mail-Sunday-wins-battle-expose-Prince-s-secret-eco-lobbying-Ministers-Government-defy-order.html, (November, 2015) 24 www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/201785/response/503995/attach/6/r%20how%20to%20process%20FOI%20cases%20Dec%202010.pdf

22

government isn’t willing to leave anything to chance and is prepared to invest considerable administrative resources to defend the royals from serious scrutiny.

The Cabinet Office has also resisted attempts to reveal official guidance relating to the relationship between the Royal Household and government. In 2013 it was revealed that the government had fought the disclosure of official Civil Service guidance on the Queen’s and Prince’s Consent rule. This is the ‘royal veto’ which ensures that all new legislation that affects the private interests of the Queen or Prince Charles must receive their consent before it can complete its passage through parliament. The existence of the official guidance on how to manage the veto only came to light after a lengthy battle fought by John Kirkhope, who was researching the powers of the Duchy of Cornwall and who submitted a freedom of information request for disclosure of the document.

“Among various more mundane points of public administration was the revelation that all cabinet papers

are sent to Prince Charles as a matter of course.”

The fact that royal consent is much more than a mere formality was a shock to many MPs. Andrew George, the Liberal Democrat MP for St Ives at the time, said: “[this document] shows the royals are playing an active role in the democratic process and we need greater transparency in parliament so we can be fully appraised of whether these powers of influence and veto are really

How it works

23

appropriate.”25 Yet the government fought through to the courts to avoid the release of the document and disclosure of the real nature of this power.

Likewise, Republic’s own investigators had to fight for three years to secure the partial disclosure of the Cabinet Office’s Precedent Book, which details how cabinet meetings are run and administered. Among various more mundane points of public administration was the revelation that all cabinet papers are sent to Prince Charles as a matter of course.26 At time of publication the Cabinet Office has released four out of twelve chapters of the book. Among those not released is Chapter 11, which the disclosed portion of the book suggests relates at least in part to communications with the palace.

If the law provides considerable protection for royal secrecy, the Cabinet Office ensures every effort is taken to plug any holes and defend against any possible breaches. In effect the government’s default position is to protect themselves and the Royal Household at every turn, placing their interests over and above those of the public.

25 Robert Booth, The Guardian, www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-royals-veto-bills, (January, 2013) 26 Republic, www.republic.org.uk/royalsecrets

Royal Secrets

24

What we know and don’t know

There is enough information in the public domain to have a good idea of what the public are not being told. Aside from the obvious fact that the monarchy is a highly visible institution and its activities inevitably raise questions about costs, there have been some revelations over the past fifteen years that indicate a wider problem of secrecy.

Lobbying

The most high profile of these revelations is the disclosure of Prince Charles’s propensity to lobby government ministers on an array of political issues, including the environment, health and military spending. What we know is that Charles is routinely seeking to alter government policy. What we don’t know is to what extent, in what way or with what success.

“Former Prime Minister John Major admitted that the Queen sought to change his mind on a number of matters, and on

occasion was successful.”

We know that lobbying is taking place thanks to numerous freedom of information requests from journalists and campaigners, including Republic, which have confirmed the


25

existence of letters from Charles to ministers.27 We know from a BBC Radio 4 documentary broadcast in 2014 that ministers have been lobbied by senior royals, not just Prince Charles.28 In the documentary, The Royal Activist, former ministers Michael Meacher and David Blunkett admitted to having talks with Prince Charles about education and the environment. Blunkett is quoted as saying: “I would explain that our policy was not to expand grammar schools, and he didn't like that. He was very keen that we should go back to a different era.” Former environment minister Michael Meacher revealed he and Prince Charles would “consort together” to influence policy on climate change and genetically modified crops. According to Meacher they wanted to: “try and ensure that we increased our influence within government [to] persuade Tony Blair to change course.” Former Prime Minister John Major admitted that the Queen sought to change his mind on a number of matters, and on occasion was successful. These are just three examples from forty years of political meddling from Charles. The impact of that history of interference is impossible to know.

Then in early 2015 the Supreme Court ordered the release of letters from Prince Charles after a ten year fight by the Guardian newspaper.29 Just a handful of letters were released, those that were sent during 2004 and 2005 that were covered by the original

27 Rob Evans, The Guardian, www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/sep/18/prince-charles-letters-ministers-judges, (September, 2012) 28 BBC, www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28066081, (June, 2014) 29 Matthew Weaver, The Guardian, www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2015/mar/26/prince-charles-memos-supreme-court-ruling-live, (March, 2015)

Royal Secrets

26

freedom of information request. The letters show a number of deliberate attempts to change ministerial minds on issues such as defence spending, the environment and NHS provision of homeopathic treatments.

So we know royal interference in politics is routine. The voting public are left with two questions: what is the extent of the problem and what is the impact of royal lobbying? These are serious questions that were not answered by the limited release of Prince Charles’s letters to the Guardian. Those letters only confirm the existence of royal lobbying on a handful of pet issues. Some journalists and monarchists declared that the letters were proof that there was no problem beyond royal inquisitiveness.30 Yet the lobbying has been happening since the 1970s, in the case of Prince Charles, and has no doubt been a feature of royal life since the eighteenth century.31 It is surely still going on, yet thanks to the change in the law in 2010 (discussed on page 9) we cannot expect further revelations.

Whether Prince Charles’s lobbying on issues of public policy is having an impact is an open question. The use of Prince Charles’s charities is a regular tactic of the prince which nevertheless allows some insight into his desire to influence policy. It was reported in 2009 that within days of Gordon Brown’s elevation to Prime Minister the Prince’s Foundation for the Built Environment was

30 Bruce Anderson, The Telegraph, www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-charles/11501229/There-is-nothing-to-fear-in-Prince-Charless-letters.html, (March, 2015) 31 Jessica Elgot, The Guardian, www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/13/queen-meddling-monarchs-prince-charles, (May, 2015)


27

lobbying ministers to adopt their policies on eco-town development. 32 It’s been suggested that Michael Gove, as education secretary, was sympathetic to Charles’s fairly controversial views on education and has been influenced by his charity The Prince’s Teaching Institute.33

“There is a further question to be asked about royal influence: Are the royals successfully lobbying for their own

interests?”

It is notable that despite limited support for homeopathy within the medical profession the NHS continues to supply homeopathic remedies and fund homeopathic hospitals. Whether this is connected to Charles’s belief in alternative medicines is hard to know, but is something voters should be able to know. The letters released to the Guardian tell us that Prince Charles lobbies for alternative medicines and doesn’t take kindly to challenges or criticisms of his views. 34 The foremost expert on alternative medicine, Professor Edzard Ernst, claims to have had his funding pulled as a result of pressure from Clarence House after he published strong criticisms of a report commissioned by Charles.

32 Robert Booth and Rob Evans, The Guardian, www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/dec/16/prince-charles-letters-ecotowns-labour, (December, 2009) 33 Hilary Wilce, The Independent, www.independent.co.uk/news/education/schools/royal-approval-how-michael-gove-is-taking-lessons-from-the-prince-of-wales-2007716.html, (October, 2011) 34 Rob Evans, Robert Booth and Jamie Grierson, The Guardian, www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/04/black-spider-memos-prince-charles-lobbied-homeopathy-funding-nhs, (June, 2015)

Royal Secrets

28

Speaking to the Guardian Ernst called Charles’s influence: “an abuse of power.” On the continued funding of homeopathy on the NHS Ernst told the Guardian that the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital enjoys “strong protection” from the royal family.35

These issues have again been raised by the Daily Mail’s more recent attempt to find out details of meetings between Prince Charles and ministers.36 The case is continuing but, as discussed before, the Information Commissioner has already disclosed that the meetings were about environmental policy. He also disclosed that a senior member of one of Prince Charles’s charities was present at the meeting, raising questions about whether a charity is hiding behind royal privileges.

The commissioner, who has access to the material that the Mail wants disclosed, said public bodies must: “disclose information about policies and decisions that could have an impact on the environment [and that ] it was likely the meeting was 'convened for the Prince to promote his views on certain issues', and would reveal his 'areas of interest’.” He added: “There was overwhelming public interest in revealing details because 'the Prince of Wales' contact with government Ministers raises legitimate questions about [his role] in a parliamentary

35 Susanna Rustin, The Guardian, www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2011/jul/30/edzard-ernst-homeopathy-complementary-medicine, (July, 2011) 36 Chris Hastings, The Daily Mail, www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3337802/Greenwash-Mail-Sunday-wins-battle-expose-Prince-s-secret-eco-lobbying-Ministers-Government-defy-order.html, (November, 2015)


29

democracy.” So we know the lobbying is taking place. What we still don’t know is the detail and the impact of that lobbying.

There is a further question to be asked about royal influence: Are the royals successfully lobbying for their own interests? This question becomes more urgent when we consider that since 2010 there have been two significant changes to the law that have been to the royals’ advantage: changes to the FOIA that strengthen the exemption for royal correspondence and the introduction of the Sovereign Grant that gives the Royal Household a very generous financial settlement. To what extent have these changes come about as a result of pressure from the Royal Household? What was the nature of that lobbying and what pressure or influence did the royals exert to secure these enhanced terms and conditions of royal service?

“Giving the royal family absolute exemption from the Freedom of Information Act would be in direct conflict with

the public interest.”

Although they admitted to having lobbied the government for the introduction of the Sovereign Grant,37 the Royal Household often claims that these kinds of changes are entirely in the hands of the government, that the decisions are made independently of the royals. This is hardly credible. In 2009 Alistair Darling introduced a unique, personalised tax-break for Prince Charles on the day of

37 Stephen Bates, The Guardian, www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/oct/20/spending-review-royal-family-civil-list, (October, 2010)

Royal Secrets

30

his budget (no doubt a good day to bury embarrassing news).38 When challenged, the Royal Household insisted the move was initiated by the Treasury, to allow for the funding of a separate press office for Princes William and Harry. A memo inadvertently un-redacted and handed to Republic showed that this wasn’t the case, that in fact it was Michael Peat, Charles’s private secretary, who asked the Treasury to provide the financial support. 39 Around that time changes to the FOIA received cross-party support and, shortly after the law change went through in Westminster, the SNP government in Holyrood introduced exactly the same amendment to the Scottish Freedom of Information Act. In Scotland however the change was eventually dropped in response to robust opposition from Rosemary Agnew, the Scottish Information Commissioner.40 Ms Agnew said in a report that: “giving the royal family absolute exemption from the Freedom of Information Act would be in direct conflict with the public interest.”41 Is it credible to believe two governments would come to the same policy decision without input from the Royal Household and their supporters in Whitehall? Indeed, in 2010 the

38 Rosa Prince, Andrew Pierce and Robert Winnett, The Telegraph, www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/5202655/Royal-Family-are-winners-from-the-Budget.html, (April, 2009) 39 Glen Owen, The Daily Mail, www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235375/Prince-William-share-Queens-duties-Treasury-document-reveals-secret-plan-make-Shadow-King.html, (December, 2009) 40 Alan Robertson, Holyrood, vlpweb01.dods.co.uk/2012/11/royal-exemption-from-foi-dropped/comment-page-1/, (November, 2012) 41 BBC, www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-19639956, (September, 2012)


31

Guardian cited Whitehall sources as saying: “the royals had felt “very strongly” that the act was too weak and demanded extra protection to conceal Charles's behind-the-scenes interventions” and that royal aides had: “successfully pressed the government to tighten up the Freedom of Information Act.”42

If we know that the Royal Household will seek to defend its own interests and there is every reason to believe they have successfully demanded greater secrecy – without any regard for the public interest. Yet there is little transparency about official decisions made about royal funding and secrecy. We cannot know what kind of pressure the royals place on politicians or why MPs are so acquiescent in granting the royals their wishes. We have no idea the extent or nature of royal lobbying or the impact it is having on government decisions.

The royal veto

As mentioned on page 22, in 2013 the Guardian revealed a little known fact about the British constitution: that the Queen and Prince Charles have a power called Queen’s and Prince’s Consent.43 The ‘royal veto’ is the mechanism by which the Queen or Prince Charles are asked to consent to any law which affects their own private and personal interests. This veto can be used by the government to block any private member’s bill that affects the

42 Rob Evans, The Guardian, www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/sep/13/charles-letters-freedom-information-act, (September, 2010) 43 Robert Booth, The Guardian, www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-royals-veto-bills, (January, 2013)

Royal Secrets

32

interests of the Crown. It can also be used by the Queen and Charles to insist that new laws are tailored to suit their interests.

We’ve seen that the government fought to deny the disclosure of civil service guidance on how to manage the process of requesting royal consent for new laws. Thanks to John Kirkhope the Information Commissioner said there was a clear public interest and the guidance was published. The document makes clear that the granting of royal consent is no mere formality – it is a very real process that requires the palace or Clarence House be given the opportunity to respond to any draft bills going through parliament. In the report of the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, which looked into the issue in 2014, the official Guide to Making Legislation is quoted as saying that: “…letters should be copied to Farrer and Co [lawyers to the Royal Household], who “will, as appropriate, advise the Royal Household, the Clerk to the Council of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Secretary to the Duchy of Cornwall on the nature of the legislation and its potential impact [on royal interests].”44

“What we don’t know is the detail, the extent to which government tailors laws to Charles’s demands or whether

the veto is used as leverage to gain influence on other issues and policy decisions.”

This revelation should appall anyone interested in the integrity of Britain’s parliament. Yet some defenders of the royals suggest

44 The impact of Queen's and Prince's Consent on the legislative process - Eleventh Report of Session 2013–14, p.7


33

there is nothing to worry about, that no law has ever been vetoed. Clarence House has said: “In modern times, the prince of Wales has never refused to consent to any bill affecting Duchy of Cornwall interests.”45 This is disingenuous. It is inevitable that no law would actually be vetoed – why would it be when the royals can simply insist it is tailored to suit their interests. The Guardian cited constitutional lawyers who described the ‘veto’ as: “a royal “nuclear deterrent” that may help explain why ministers appear to pay close attention to the views of senior royals.” Republic has drawn up a long list of laws that make special mention of the Crown or the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, so we can see that laws are being tailored in this way.46 For instance the Duchy of Cornwall has privileged status in laws relating to land ownership, leasehold rights, the power of local authorities to compulsorily purchase land and certain infrastructure legislation.47

If we tie this very real power of the royals to the almost complete secrecy surrounding their communications there is clearly a lot of scope for influencing the legislative process. The problem becomes more serious still when we consider whether it’s possible for the royals to use their veto as leverage to get their way on other matters, beyond their private interests.

So we know the power exists and by trawling through the legislative record we can make some guesses about the way the

45 Robert Booth, The Guardian, www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-royals-veto-bills, (January, 2013) 46 See Appendix A.3 47 Republic, www.republic.org.uk/duchys-powers-and-privileges

Royal Secrets

34

royals – particularly Charles – have used it. What we don’t know is the detail, the extent to which government tailors laws to Charles’s demands or whether the veto is used as leverage to gain influence on other issues and policy decisions.

Financial interests

There is then the question of whether other people, friends, business partners and so on, are able to co-opt the royals in pursuit of their interests. That is one reason Republic called on the Coalition government to apply financial disclosure rules to the Royal Household. If Prince Charles, for example, has privileged access to information and ministers, the ability to lobby ministers in secret and the leverage to turn his requests into demands, then surely there is a real risk that his power will be misused. In a letter to the government Republic argued: “…senior royals will have access to information about government proposals that will in time affect the market value of shares but is not yet known to the market. The current wall of secrecy around the financial interests of senior royals make it impossible for the public to know whether or not they have profited from the misuse of market sensitive information or the extent to which their lobbying has advanced their own financial interests.”48 Or those of their friends and acquaintances.

Financial disclosure is commonplace in Westminster. Ministers and MPs are required to disclose their personal financial interests

48 Roy Greenslade, The Guardian, www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/jan/30/republic-to-prince-charles-disclose-your-financial-interests, (January, 2015)


35

so as to protect against corruption, to give the public confidence that official decisions are being made in the public interest and not for the personal gain of those in power.49 Given the access, secrecy and power enjoyed by senior royals what possible reason can there be for not applying the same rules and standards. We are instead left in the dark about possible conflicts of interest or potential for the abuse of royal power for personal gain.

Royal funding

In some respects the Sovereign Grant is an improvement on previous funding arrangements. The grant is subjected to audit by the National Audit Office for instance, and to a review every five years. However, a lot of royal spending remains opaque.

It remains the case that items of royal travel under £10,000 are not detailed in the annual finance report. So taxpayers have no way of knowing how the travel budget is being spent and whether it’s being spent wisely. We can assume it’s not being spent wisely because of press stories that show the royals using helicopters for what are ostensibly private trips between Highgrove and London or Ascot or chartered flights between London and Balmoral. The Daily Mail reported such an incident in May 2015, when Prince Charles flew from Highgrove to Ascot, just two days after

49 www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/standards-and-financial-interests/

Royal Secrets

36

lecturing the public on climate change.50 Yet the press are left making their own calculations and assumptions based on what little they know, they are not given the details of the costs or any satisfactory explanation as to why the taxpayer is footing the bill.

This is a small part of the estimated £334m annual cost of the monarchy discussed on page 18. We can be fairly certain of that figure – or at least certain that it is much closer to the truth than the official figure reported by the palace – but we are left with many uncertainties and unanswered questions. The security cost is a significant question mark, as are taxes paid by the Queen. Republic can produce a good estimate on costs to local councils – £21.5m – but it is hard to know an accurate figure because the palace takes no responsibility for collating the data or covering the costs.

Archives and wills

In the case of royal wills and royal archives there’s very little we do know, except that there is a lot to know that is being kept secret. Reports over the years have suggested considerable inheritances and rumours about political interferences. Yet thanks to the sealing of the wills and tightly guarded access to the archives we rely on rumour and conjecture.

50 James Tozer and Tania Steere, The Daily Mail, www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3018985/Prince-Charles-makes-80-mile-trip-helicopter-just-days-urging-people-turn-lights-save-energy.html, (March 2015)


37

Royal funding breakdown51

Cost £m Sovereign grant 40 Annuity for Duke of Edinburgh 0.4 State buildings used by royal family 30.6 Duchy of Cornwall profits/gains - lost 92.5 Duchy of Lancaster profits/gains - lost 27.3 Royal Collection net surplus - lost 6.8 Cost to local councils 21.5 Royal Household pension scheme 2.2 Security 103 Costs met by government Departments and the Crown Estate 3.8

Cost of lord lieutenants 2.1 Bona vacantia proceeds - Duchy of Cornwall 0 Bona vacantia proceeds - Duchy of Lancaster 3.4 Civil list pensions 0.1 Legal costs to maintain royal secrecy 0.2

total £333.9

51 Republic, Royal Expenses: Counting the Cost of the Monarchy, (2015)

Royal Secrets

38

The historian Philip Murphy has written: “The majority of books about the contemporary monarchy bear a striking resemblance to the intelligence literature of the 1980s.”52 For a serious scholar who is evidently sympathetic to the monarchy to draw comparisons with the security services of the Cold War says a great deal about the nature of royal secrecy.

“We know almost nothing of the detail of royal inheritances, and very little about the recent history of Britain’s Head of

State.”

In the case of royal wills the secrecy leaves the public in the dark about questions of financial probity and the appropriation of official gifts. The Guardian reported that the Queen Mother: “…acquired assets worth up to £70m in her lifetime,” while: “Princess Margaret was said to have left £7.6m to her family.” They quote constitutional expert Michael Nash suggesting there is: “speculation as to which … jewels belonged to the state, as official gifts, and which were personal property.” 53 We know almost nothing of the detail of royal inheritances, and very little about the recent history of Britain’s Head of State, other than the most public and superficial facts.

The balance sheet of what we know and don’t know is very much in the royals’ favour. The breadth of secrecy means that not only

52 Philip Murphy, The Conversation, www.theconversation.com/what-the-royal-family-can-learn-from-mi5-about-secrecy-45023, (July, 2015) 53 Jamie Doward and Tracy McVeigh, The Guardian, www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/18/royal-family-archives-queen-nazi-salute, (July, 2015)


39

do we know little about royal actions, we know little about who the royals are. Who are these people who claim to represent us? What are they saying to who in private? How are they spending our money? What influence are they having on the way we are governed? We can be certain there are questions to be answered, we can be fairly sure we won’t like the answers – but the answers remain largely a secret yet to be revealed.

40

Principles and standards in public life

It’s been argued that royal correspondence should be protected as a matter of privacy, rather than disclosed as a matter of transparency. The government, while defending their decision not to release Prince Charles’s letters, argued that disclosure of the letters would be a: “breach of confidence [and that] everyone has the right to respect for their correspondence.” The government’s legal team added: “Such respect is necessary not only as an aspect of privacy, but also to enable freedom of expression, which would inevitably be inhibited by the removal of the right to communicate privately.”54

However, this is not a case of protecting the privacy of a private citizen. Clearly the Royal Household meets all the criteria for a public authority, its sole purpose after all is to provide the nation with a Head of State and it is entirely funded by the taxpayer, whether directly or indirectly. In a democratic society it is a matter of principle that public authorities are accountable and transparent in the way they operate.

The Committee on Standards in Public Life is an independent advisory non-departmental public body that advises the Prime Minister on ethical issues relating to standards in public life, as

54 The Telegraph, www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/princecharles/11495976/Prince-Charles-letters-Supreme-Court-to-give-a-decision-over-publication.html, (March, 2015)


41

well as conducting ”broad inquiries into standards of conduct.”55 The committee has compiled the 7 Principles of Public Life, each one setting a standard by which public authorities can be measured.56 On each measure the monarchy falls short by some distance – or at the very least is unable to prove itself given its own insistence on secrecy.

The first two principles, selflessness and integrity immediately raise questions about how the royals operate. The principle of selflessness demands that “holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest.” Yet we need to know how the royals are acting in order to see how they measure up. Given the demands for greater secrecy and improved funding arrangements and their routine use of public money for private purposes can we honestly say the monarchy lives up to this most basic principle of public service? The same question applies to the second principle, that of integrity. The principle states that:

“Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.”

55 www.gov.uk/government/organisations/the-committee-on-standards-in-public-life/about 56 www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-7-principles-of-public-life

Royal Secrets

42

7 Principles of Public Life

1. Selflessness. Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest.

2. Integrity. Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.

3. Objectivity. Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.

4. Accountability. Holders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this.

5. Openness. Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.

6. Honesty. Holders of public office should be truthful.

7. Leadership. Holders of public office should exhibit these principles in their own behaviour. They should actively promote and robustly support the principles and be willing to challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.


43

Again, where is the transparency that ensures the integrity of the Windsor family? There is no declaration of interests or relationships that may cause them to take inappropriate actions. We have reason to believe the royals routinely use their position to gain financial and material benefits.

“An impartial authority must be open and honest in its actions so others can judge whether it is abiding by its

obligation to impartiality.”

The third principle is objectivity. Public officials: “must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.” This is interesting because it goes to the heart of arguments in favour of the monarchy. It is claimed that the strength of the monarchy is that it provides an impartial, neutral Head of State who can rise above the political fray. The problem with that argument is that impartiality must be seen to be done, an impartial authority must be open and honest in its actions so others can judge whether it is abiding by its obligation to impartiality. This is true of the police, judges, the BBC and the speaker of the House of Commons.

Royal secrecy undermines its claim to impartiality because we simply do not know what kind of influence the royals are having on political decisions. This was central to the argument around the release of Prince Charles’s letters to the Guardian. The Guardian argued there was a clear public interest in releasing the letters so that the public can judge whether or not Charles was abiding by his responsibility to keep out of politics. It’s a view shared by the courts, but not by the government. The Attorney General at the

Royal Secrets

44

time, Dominic Grieve, used the ministerial veto to initially block the release of the letters. He argued that the letters contained Charles’s: “most deeply held personal views and beliefs [and] are in many cases particularly frank.” He said their disclosure could: “damage … the Prince of Wales’ political neutrality [and] seriously undermine the Prince’s ability to fulfil his duties when he becomes King.”57 Republic responded by pointing out that what Grieve was essentially saying is that Prince Charles is not impartial, but that it was necessary to keep the letters secret in order to maintain a pretence of impartiality. In other words, it is better to pretend Charles is impartial than to prove he is not.

“Democracy demands the right of the people to know what’s going on, what our leaders and officials are doing.”

That is not a position founded on principle but on a political desire to protect the institution of the monarchy. The point is clear – if the monarchy is expected to be an impartial institution then it cannot continue to shroud itself in secrecy. If it cannot be transparent without jeopardizing its future then there is something seriously amiss.

The fourth principle is accountability, including the demand that public officials: “…must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary...” Clearly royal secrecy – not to mention the lack of any mechanism for challenge and removal – makes accountability near

57 Rob Evans and Robert Booth, The Guardian, www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/oct/16/attorney-general-blocks-prince-charles-letters, (October, 2012)


45

impossible. The people are simply called on to trust the royal family, to assume the best and not to ask too many questions. This is the absolute antithesis of democratic values. Democracy demands the right of the people to know what’s going on, what our leaders and officials are doing so that we can judge them and remove them from office if need be. How can that be possible when we know little of royal lobbying, the way royals spend public money or how they use their veto to demand legal privileges?

Openness and honesty are the next two principles on the Committee’s list. Again the royals fail to measure up. There simply isn’t any openness except for the most limited and reluctant disclosure of a portion of their official funding and the finances of the two duchies. The principles state that: “Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.” Well the reasons may be lawful, given that the laws are shaped to fit royal interests, but they are hardly legitimate. Which raises the point about honesty.

The Royal Household routinely employs duplicitous, questionable and dishonest arguments to avoid scrutiny and challenges to their position. This has been true in the way they spin their finances, claiming to cost everyone just a few pence per person and making an explicit link to the Crown Estate revenue, implying that this offsets the costs to the taxpayer. The dishonesty was on full display when the Duchy of Cornwall was being investigated by the Public Accounts Committee for not paying corporation tax. Duchy officials offered a list of excuses that often contradicted each other and none of which stood up to credible scrutiny. Given

Royal Secrets

46

that these officials are intelligent and qualified people it can readily be concluded this was a deliberate exercise in muddying the waters and deflecting real scrutiny of what is essentially a bare-faced refusal to pay tax.

“If we can expect the highest standards from public institutions and office holders, and consequences for those

who fall short of those standards, why is the same not true of the monarchy?”

Given all of the above it goes without saying that the monarchy fails the final test, that of leadership. The Royal Household sets a very low standard for honesty, openness and transparency. It is an institution that demands secrecy at every turn and which seeks to control and manage the way information is released.

The standards in public life set a benchmark for the ethical standards of public institutions, whether that’s parliament, government departments, the courts or the police. If we can expect the highest standards from public institutions and office holders, and consequences for those who fall short of those standards, why is the same not true of the monarchy? The Royal Household, it seems, lives by its own standards and their principal concern is not the public interest but the material and political interests of the royal family. This goes to the heart of the royal secrecy issue – it is because the monarchy falls so far short of the standards expected in a modern democracy that they defend their secrets so fiercely.

47

Why this matters: The impact of secrecy

This shouldn’t be an overly complicated argument to make. Institutions, like people, act more honestly when they’re being watched. For evidence we only need to look at how MPs’ expenses have been challenged and changed as a result of proper scrutiny. Had the system of expenses been open and transparent from the start we would have saved ourselves scandal and financial cost, and many MPs would still be sitting in parliament.

“Secrecy increases the chances of corruption and scandal and limits the ability of the voters to hold public officials to

account.”

Secrecy increases the chances of corruption and scandal and limits the ability of the voters to hold public officials to account. Secrecy has far reaching consequences for society, politics and our public institutions. This is as true for the monarchy as it is for parliament, the NHS or the security services. In comparing royal secrecy with the security services of the 1980s, Professor Philip Murphy said: “This obsessive secrecy … impedes an informed and rational discussion about the nature of constitutional monarchy.”58

58 Philip Murphy, The Conversation, www.theconversation.com/what-the-royal-family-can-learn-from-mi5-about-secrecy-45023, (July, 2015)

Royal Secrets

48

This may well point to an explanation for the secrecy. The secrecy is no accident, it is not a cultural hangover from a bygone age, it is a deliberate policy designed to avoid serious debate and scrutiny. The monarchy demands secrecy because it fears it cannot survive that debate, that the scrutiny would shed too much light on too many skeletons in a very cluttered closet. The Royal Household appears to believe – and Republic would agree – that it needs secrecy in order to survive. Because if the people really saw it warts and all they wouldn’t like what they saw.

Accountability

The monarchy is not founded on the notion of accountability, yet there is nevertheless a need to be accountable to the people in the broadest sense. That is impossible while the institution is shrouded in secrecy. How can the people make a serious and measured judgement about the merits or failures of the monarchy with so little information to go by? Not only can we make no informed judgement about the actions of the royals, very often we simply don’t know what those actions are. Instead voters are asked to accept the word of the Royal Household and their government minders. We are told to believe that the institution is dignified, that the family are committed to public service. As noted above the view of the government appears to be that it is better to pretend the royals are doing nothing wrong than to prove they are. The result is an institution largely free to do as it pleases without much concern for the public interest.

Why this matters: the impact of secrecy

49

Financial probity

One of the most common consequences of secrecy is the misuse of public money. Secrecy and the lack of any real system of accountability allows the royals to cost the taxpayer in excess of £334m every year. We are not told many of the details of the officially disclosed spending, we’re told nothing about security costs and we can know nothing about the pressure the royals put on politicians to provide the funding and turn a blind eye on tax. The result of the secrecy is not just a huge bill for the Treasury, money that could be spent on public services. The secrecy also means the routine abuse of public money, spent by the royals on private travel, accommodation and staff.

Public policy

We know that Prince Charles lobbies politicians on a wide range of issues. What we need to know is whether other royals are doing the same, and whether this lobbying is having an influence on policy decisions. Royal secrecy leaves voters in the dark as to whether policy is being made according to the best judgement of the public interest or in line with the demands and whims of the Windsor family.

Representation and reputation

The Queen claims to represent the nation, yet we know very little about her views and values or about who she really is. Some people think this is a virtue, but it is a dishonest approach to representation that asks the nation to play make-believe rather than to have a grown-up relationship with their representatives. Royal secrecy ensures we can’t really know who the royals are,

Royal Secrets

50

what they believe or about their values. As Murphy says, what we know about the royals: “consists mostly of reheated gossip, self-interested briefings from a range of current and former royal flunkeys, and tabloid revelations… [the longevity of the Queen’s reign] means we have no such authoritative accounts of the political role of the Palace in the 1960s or 1970s.”59

“This is about how Britain is represented, yet we are largely in the dark about who this person is, who it is that is

representing us and how they are doing so.”

As Head of State the Queen meets thousands of people, including business and world leaders, diplomats and members of our own communities. There is anecdotal evidence, such as the revelations from journalist Joan Smith who met the Queen in Buckingham palace, that the Queen is not an able and natural communicator or a good ambassador for Britain.60 Who does this job and what they say to the people they meet matters. This is about how Britain is represented, yet we are largely in the dark about who this person is, who it is that is representing us and how they are doing so. Opening up the archives and rolling back the culture of secrecy will allow us to know and judge our highest representative.

59 Philip Murphy, The Conversation, www.theconversation.com/what-the-royal-family-can-learn-from-mi5-about-secrecy-45023, (July, 2015) 60 Tim Walker ed. Richard Eden, The Telegraph, www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/8468984/The-Queen-is-cold-on-Turkeys-bid-to-join-the-European-Union-claims-Labour-ministers-lover.html, (April, 2011)

Why this matters: the impact of secrecy

51

Free and informed debate

Monarchists like to trumpet the monarchy’s enduring popularity. Most people in Britain are largely indifferent to the monarchy but see it as harmless, powerless and benign. This leads most people to conclude that they’re happy to have the monarchy continue, a fairly passive position misread by the royals’ supporters as love and affection. Yet public opinion rests on a foundation of spin and secrecy that makes a free and well-informed debate near impossible. Facts about political influence and power are obscured or excused, royal spending is spun and attention deflected.

In a democratic society institutions need to enjoy the clear and informed support of the people. Building support around a wholly superficial and dishonest relationship with the royals is not a sustainable position. Speaking at the 2015 John Campbell Lecture, PR expert Robert Phillips said: “The trustworthy organisation of the future is open, empathetic and shared .... not behaviours the monarchy shows in abundance […] The mega trend of individual empowerment is eroding trust and belief in all institutions. There is no logical reason why monarchy should not suffer a similar fate.”61

Yet here is the rock and the hard place for the royals. Continued secrecy in the face of growing networks which empower people to challenge institutions will erode trust. On the other hand a greater openness – a ‘royal glasnost’ – will expose decades of secrets,

61 Robert Phillips, John Campbell Lecture 2015, www.republic.org.uk/jcl

Royal Secrets

52

abuse of privilege and misuse of public money. The impact of openness will be a free and informed debate that the monarchy will unlikely survive, while the impact of secrecy is a gradual erosion of trust and an unsustainable, superficial, relationship between public and palace.

53

Recommendations

It goes without saying that Republic aims for the abolition of the monarchy. The subject of this report however is the matter of royal secrecy and in that context the following reforms are proposed:

1. Reform the Freedom of Information Act

The FOIA needs to include the monarchy as a public authority within its scope, so that the Royal Household is bound by the same rules as any other public body. The changes made in 2010 should also be repealed, re-introducing the public interest test to official communications between the government and Head of State. The general exemption for royals should be scrapped altogether.

2. Full disclosure of royal lobbying

The public has a right to know the extent, nature and impact of royal lobbying on public policy and legislation. So it is recommended that all correspondence held by public authorities received from the Royal Household should be disclosed. The usual exemptions under the Act should still apply, such as national security and legitimate confidentiality.

3. Full disclosure of the use of the Queen’s and Prince’s consent

All records regarding the granting of Queen’s and Prince’s consent should be published, to allow for a full assessment of the impact of the veto on legislation.

Royal Secrets

54

4. An end to the royal veto

The Queen’s and Prince’s consent rule should be scrapped. If the government wishes the Crown to be given privileged status within any law it will need to make the case in parliament.

5. An end to the practice of sending cabinet papers to Prince Charles

Prince Charles has no legitimate need to see cabinet papers. This practice should stop immediately.

6. Introduce financial reporting reforms so that royal finances are reported by an independent body

The palace should no longer be responsible for reporting royal finances. This task should fall to an independent body that must be required to publish the figures in full, to the same standards as are applied to other public bodies and without any accompanying spin.

7. Incorporate all royal costs into the central finance report

All costs met by local councils, police forces or any other body, plus the revenues and costs from the Duchies should be included in the official calculation of the annual cost of the monarchy.

8. Transfer royal archives to the national archives and place them under the same rules for disclosure and access

Official royal archives should be accessible under the same rules as cabinet papers and other official documents.

Recommendations

55

9. A full commitment to apply the 7 standards in public life to the Royal Household.

An independent body should report annually to parliament on how the Royal Household measures up to the 7 standards in public life.

56

Appendix

A.1

Freedom of Information Act 2000

37 Communications with Her Majesty, etc. and honours.

(1) Information is exempt information if it relates to— a. communications with the Sovereign, a. communications with the heir to, or the person who is for the

time being second in line of succession to, the Throne, ab. communications with a person who has subsequently acceded

to the Throne or become heir to, or second in line to, the Throne,

ac. communications with other members of the Royal Family (other than communications which fall within any of paragraphs (a) to (ab) because they are made or received on behalf of a person falling within any of those paragraphs), and

ad. communications with the Royal Household (other than communications which fall within any of paragraphs (a) to (ac) because they are made or received on behalf of a person falling within any of those paragraphs), or]

b. the conferring by the Crown of any honour or dignity. (2) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise in relation to information

which is (or if it were held by the public authority would be) exempt information by virtue of subsection (1).

Appendix

57

A.2

Records transferred from the National Archive to the Royal Archive

Year

s Fr

om

Des

crip

tion

of re

cord

s To

St

atus

of P

ublic

R

ecor

ds

2010

M

inist

ry o

f D

efen

ce

File

s det

ailin

g fly

ing

trai

ning

for

Roya

l Fam

ily, 1

967-

1984

Ro

yal A

rchi

ves,

The,

Win

dsor

Pr

esen

tatio

n

2004

C

usto

ms a

nd

Exci

se

Cus

tom

s and

Exc

ise:

Let

ter f

rom

Pr

ince

Ado

lphu

s Fre

deric

k, 1

846

Ro

yal A

rchi

ves,

The,

Win

dsor

Pr

esen

tatio

n /

Publ

ic R

ecor

ds

C

usto

ms a

nd

Exci

se

Cus

tom

s and

Exc

ise:

Let

ter f

rom

Pr

ince

Ado

lphu

s Fre

deric

k, 1

846

Ro

yal A

rchi

ves,

The,

Win

dsor

Pu

blic

Rec

ords

/

Pres

enta

tion

1993

Tr

easu

ry

Solic

itor

Roya

l Cor

resp

onde

nce

Roya

l Arc

hive

s, Th

e, W

inds

or

Pres

enta

tion

1967

Pu

blic

Rec

ord

Offi

ce

Priv

y Pu

rse

Offi

ce: P

rivy

Purs

e O

ffice

: Vou

cher

s, 18

53-1

869

(143

ite

ms)

Ro

yal A

rchi

ves,

Win

dsor

N

ot P

ublic

Re

cord

s

1967

Pu

blic

Rec

ord

Offi

ce

Priv

y Pu

rse

Offi

ce: P

rivy

Purs

e O

ffice

: Visi

tors

' Boo

ks, 1

837-

1954

(1

46 it

ems)

Ro

yal A

rchi

ves,

Win

dsor

N

ot P

ublic

Re

cord

s

Sour

ce: N

atio

nal A

rchi

ves,

rele

ased

to R

epub

lic th

roug

h a

Free

dom

of I

nfor

mat

ion

requ

est

Royal Secrets

58

A.3

Laws relating to the Crown or the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster

No. Name of bill and date at which consent was communicated to Parliament Year Parliament Type

1 Sharing of Church Buildings Measure – 19 March 1970 1970 UK C of E Measure

2 Plymouth and South West Devon Water Bill – 14 April 1970 1970 UK Bill

3 Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) – 20 May 1970 1970 UK Bill

4 Tor Bay Harbour Bill – 8 July 1970 1970 UK Bill

5 British Waterways Bill 21 July 1970 1970 UK Bill

6 Wild Creatures and Forest Laws Bill – 25 January 1971 1971 UK Bill

7 Falmouth Container Terminal Bill – 16 Feb 1971 1971 UK Bill

8 Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Bill – 18 March 1971 1971 UK Bill

9 Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill – 26 March 1971 1971 UK Bill

10 Water Resources Bill – 13 May 1971 1971 UK Bill

11 Town and Country Planning Bill – 20 October 1971 1971 UK Bill

12 Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 1971 UK Bill

13 Benefices Measure 1971 – 21 December 1971 1971 UK C of E Measure

14 Devon River Authority (General Powers) Bill 1972 UK Bill

15 Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Bill – 17 July 1972 1972 UK Bill

16 Local Government Bill – 21 July 1972 1972 UK Bill

17 Devon County Council Bill – 25 July 1972 1972 UK Bill

18 Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) – 10 May 1973 1973 UK Bill

19 Land Tenure Reform (Scotland) Bill – 13 June 1974 1974 UK Bill

20 Health and Safety at Work etc. Bill –18 June 1974 1974 UK Bill

21 Treasure Bill – 26 June 1996 1974 UK Bill

Appendix

59


22 Town and Country Amenities Bill – 25 July 1974 1974 UK Bill

23 Offshore Petroleum Development (Scotland) Bill – 14 January 1975 1975 UK Bill

24 Dart Harbour and Navigation Authority Bill – 6 May 1975 1975 UK Bill

25 Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Bill – 24 June 1975 1975 UK Bill

26 Land Compensation Bill – 24 June 1975 1975 UK Bill

27 Safety of Sports Grounds Bill – 15 July 1975 1975 UK Bill

28 Community Land Bill 14 October 1975 1975 UK Bill

29 Welsh Development Agency (No. 2) Bill – 23 October 1975 1975 UK Bill

30 Local Government Miscellaneous Provisons Bill – 10 May 1976 1976 UK Bill

31 Rent (Agriculture) Bill – 22 July 1976 1976 UK Bill

32 Administration of Justice Bill (1977) 1977 UK Bill

33 Control of Office Development Bill – 15 June 1977 1977 UK Bill

34 Torts (Interference with Goods) Bill – 5 July 1977 1977 UK Bill

35 Rentcharges Bill – 11 July 1977 1977 UK Bill

36 Agriculture Bill – 22 July 1986 1977 UK Bill

37 Finance Bill – 25 July 1977 1977 UK Bill

38 Land Registration (Scotland) Bill – 15 February 1979 1979 UK Bill

39 Limitation Amendment Bill – 2 April 1980 1980 UK Bill

40 Housing Bill – 30 July 1980 1980 UK Bill

41 Tenants' Rights, etc. (Scotland) Bill – 7 August 1980 1980 UK Bill

42 Companies (No. 2) Bill – 30 April 1981 1981 UK Bill

43 Wildlife and Countryside Bill – 30 July 1981 1981 UK Bill

44 Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill – 21 June 1982 1982 UK Bill

45 Duchy of Cornwall Management Bill – 28 July 1982 1982 UK Bill

46 Antiquities Bill – 8 February 1982 1982 UK Bill

47 Telecommunications Bill – 29 March 1983 1983 UK Bill

Royal Secrets

60


48 Housing and Building Control Bill – 21 December 1983 1983 UK Bill

49 Foreign Limitation Periods Bill – 24 January 1984 1984 UK Bill

50 Occupiers' Liability Bill 20 February 1984 1984 UK Bill

51 Town and Country Planning Bill – 28 February 1984 1984 UK Bill

52 Housing and Building Control Bill – 5 April 1984 1984 UK Bill

53 Cycle Tracks Bill – 27 April 1984 1984 UK Bill

54 Food and Environment Protection Bill – 26 June 1985 1985 UK Bill

55 Administration of Justice Bill (1985) 1985 UK Bill

56 Insolvency Bill – 18 July 1985 1985 UK Bill

57 Highways (Amendment) Bill 28 February 1986 1986 UK Bill

58 Land Registration Bill – 22 April 1986 1986 UK Bill

59 Housing Bill – 17 July 1986 1986 UK Bill

60 Wages Bill – 22 July 1986 1986 UK Bill

61 Housing and Planning Bill – 28 October 1986 1986 UK Bill

62 Weights and Measures &c. (No. 2) Bill – 2 November 1986 1986 UK Bill

63 Reverter of Sites Bill – 19 January 1987 1987 UK Bill

64 Pilotage Bill – 5 March 1987 1987 UK Bill

65 Recognition of Trusts Bill – 7 April 1987 1987 UK Bill

66 Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Bill – 7 May 1987 1987 UK Bill

67 Land Registration Bill – 23 February 1988 1988 UK Bill

68 Landlord and Tenant Bill – 5 May 1988 1988 UK Bill

69 Housing Bill – 3 November 1988 1988 UK Bill

70 Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Bill – 16 March 1989 1989 UK Bill

71 Companies Bill – 27 April 1989 1989 UK Bill

72 Pesticides (Fees and Enforcement) Bill – 19 June 1989 1989 UK Bill

73 Common Land (Rectification of Registers) Bill – 3 July 1989 1989 UK Bill

Appendix

61


74 Electricity Bill – 18 July 1989 1989 UK Bill

75 Food Safety Bill – 19 February 1990 1990 UK Bill

76 Rights of Way Bill – 4 May 1990 1990 UK Bill

77 Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) Bill 1990 UK Bill

78 Landlord and Tenant (Licensed Premises) Bill – 23 July 1990 1990 UK Bill

79 New Roads and Street Works Bill – 12 February 1991 1991 UK Bill

80 Planning and Compensation Bill – 28 February 1991 1991 UK Bill

81 Local Government Finance and Valuation Bill – 23 July 1991 1991 UK Bill

82 Transport and Works Bill – 4 March 1992 1992 UK Bill

83 Damages (Scotland) Bill – 7 December 1992 1992 UK Bill

84 Damages (Scotland) (No. 2) Bill – 29 January 1993 1993 UK Bill

85 Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Bill – 25 May 1993 1993 UK Bill

86 Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure – 29 October 1993 1993 UK Bill

87 National Parks Bill – 4 May 1994 1994 UK Bill

88 Coal Industry Bill – 21 June 1994 1994 UK Bill

89 Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill – 28 June 1994 1994 UK Bill

90 Agricultural Tenancies Bill – 30 January 1995 1995 UK Bill

91 Environment Bill – 20 March 1995 1995 UK Bill

92 Law Reform (Succession) Bill – 2 May 1995 1995 UK Bill

93 Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Bill – 12 July 1995 1995 UK Bill

94 Arbitration Bill – 2 April 1996 1996 UK Bill

95 Carriage by Air and Road Bill – 15 March 1979 1996 UK Bill

96 Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Bill – 7 May 1996 1996 UK Bill

97 Party Wall etc. Bill – 11 June 1996 1996 UK Bill

98 Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill – 23 July 1996 1996 UK Bill

Royal Secrets

62


99 Land Registration Bill – 12 December 1996 1996 UK Bill

100 Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Bill – 23 January 1997 1997 UK Bill

101 Data Protection Bill – 24 March 1998 1998 UK Bill

102 Water Industry Bill – 10 February 1999 1999 UK Bill

103 House of Lords Bill – 29 March 1999 1999 UK Bill

104 Water Industry Bill – 24 June 1999 1999 UK Bill

105 Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc (Scotland) Bill 1999 Scottish Bill

106 Trustee Bill – 29 June 2000 2000 UK Bill

107 Countryside and Rights of Way Bill – 23 November 2000 2000 UK Bill

108 Land Registration Bill – 8 November 2001 2001 UK Bill

109 Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill – 19 November 2001 2001 UK Bill

110 Marine Wildfire Conservation Bill – 2002 2002 UK Bill

111 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill – 2003(?) 2003 UK Bill

112 Licensing Bill – 19 June 2003 2003 UK Bill

113 Communications Bill – 8 July 2003 2003 UK Bill

114 Water Bill – 9 July 2003 2003 UK Bill

115 Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill – 18 November 2003 2003 UK Bill

116 Energy Bill – 20 April 2004 2004 UK Bill

117 Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Bill – 14 July 2004 2004 UK Bill

118 Finance Bill 2004 – 20 July 2004 2004 UK Bill

119 Hunting Bill – 15 November 2004 2004 UK Bill

120 Succession to the Crown Bill – 14 January 2005 2005 UK Bill

121 Gambling Bill – 6 April 2005 2005 UK Bill

122 Charities Bill – 8 November 2005 2005 UK Bill

123 Road Safety Bill – 10 January 2006 2006 UK Bill

124 Commons Bill – 18 January 2006 2006 UK Bill

Appendix

63


125 London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill – 14 March 2006 2006 UK Bill

126 Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill – 27 March 2006 2006 UK Bill

127 Company Law Reform Bill – 23 May 2006 2006 UK Bill

128 Companies Bill – 19 October 2006 2006 UK Bill

129 Retail Development Bill – 8 July 2008 2008 UK Bill

130 Housing and Regeneration Bill – 17 July 2008 2008 UK Bill

131 Planning Bill – 18 November 2008 2008 UK Bill

132 Pension Credit and Personal Expense Allowance (Duty of Consultation and Review) – 24 March 2009 2009 UK Bill

133 Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill – 29 April 2009 2009 UK Bill

134 Marine and Coastal Access Bill – 8 June 2009 2009 UK Bill

135 Coroners and Justice Bill – 5 November 2009 2009 UK Bill

136 Crown Benefices (Parish Representatives) Measure – 13 January 2010 2010 UK C of E

Measure

137 Co–operative and Community Benefit Societies and Credit Unions Bill – 14 January 2010 2010 UK Bill

138 Powers of Entry etc. Bill – 6 April 2010 2010 UK Bill

139 Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure – 3 March 2010 2010 UK C of E

Measure

140 Marine Navigation Aids Bill – 21 January 2011 2011 UK Bill

141 Energy Bill – 15 March 2011 2011 UK Bill

142 Sovereign Grant Bill – 3 October 2011 2011 UK Bill

143 Localism Bill – 31 October 2011 2011 UK Bill

144 Agriculture Bill – 20 May 1970 2013 UK Bill

145 Rights of the Sovereign and the Duchy of Cornwall Bill – 8 November 2013 2013 UK Bill

146 Energy Bill – 19 November 2013 2013 UK Bill

64

Also Available

ROYAL EXPENSES: COUNTING THE COST OF THE MONARCHY

Every year the royal household tries to persuade the public that the monarchy is cheap, that it represents ‘value-for-money’. In their annual accounts the royals claim to cost the taxpayer around £40m and their spin doctors divide that sum by every man, woman and child in the country, to come up with a cost of just a few pence per person.

Royal Expenses: Counting the cost of the monarchy exposes the reality behind royal expenses, highlighting hundreds of millions of pounds of costs that the official report ignores. With the real figure coming in at around £334m a year the monarchy is shown to be one of the most expensive institutions of its type in Europe. The reality is that each ‘working royal’ costs the taxpayer around £18.5m each, money that could employ thousands of nurses, teachers or police officers.

The monarchy costs Britain dear, whether that’s in lost revenue and tax, bloated travel expenses or costs picked up by local authorities as the royals tour the country. Yet the costs go far beyond the financial, there is also a real political cost and a lost opportunity to choose a Head of State who is both accountable and an inspiration.

Royal Expenses: Counting the cost of the monarchy challenges the palace spin head on, and shows clearly that this is not a value-for-money monarchy, but an unaccountable institution that has little concern for the highest standards of public life.

Available from www.republic.org.uk/shop

65

Join Republic, Make History

Your support makes this campaign louder and stronger

Republic can continue to challenge royal secrecy with your support. Your membership will allow us to do more research and investigations, talk to more MPs about the abuses of royal power, raise greater awareness through the media and local action.

Republic gets results

Republic is now routinely in the press and on the airwaves, making the case for an end to the monarchy and a democratic alternative. We work with the media, with MPs and with local people around the country, raising awareness of the need for change.

In recent years Republic has prompted MPs to investigate the Duchy of Cornwall, which caused widespread media scrutiny of the Duchy’s tax avoidance. Republic has also given evidence to parliamentary committees on a range of issues, from royal expenses to honours and wider constitutional reform.

With a growing membership and expanding network of local campaigns Republic needs your support.

Visit us online today and join at www.republic.org.uk/join

The secrecy surrounding the royals has been likened to that of Britain’s security services during the Cold War. The monarchy is certainly one of the country’s most secretive institutions, gaining access to ministers without any chance of scrutiny, spending public money without proper accountability. Defenders of the monarchy claim secrecy is necessary for the institution to remain impartial. This report argues that the opposite is true, that public institutions mustmust be built on honesty and trust, that impartiality must be seen to be done.

The Royal Secrets Report sets out the nature of the problem, how royal secrecy works, what we know and don’t know and why it matters. This is not just a matter of principle but one of real politics. With Prince Charles having access to Cabinet papers and secret access to government ministers he – along with his family – has unique opportunities to influence government in line with his agenda and his own personal interests.

ThisThis report goes to the heart of what is wrong with an unaccountable, hereditary institution. This is why democratic values need to be infused into every corner of the state. Yet this report also makes clear that the monarchy is in a difficult position, that it has now become dependent on secrecy to survive. End the secrecy and we may well end the monarchy.

republic royal secrets report · royal secrets the lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur...

Documents