CAMPAIGNERS have called for more transparency over Prince Charles’s contact with the UK Government.
The heir to the throne was in correspondence with the Foreign Office and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) last year, according to freedom of information requests seen by the Sunday National.
However, the release of information has been declined under an exemption for communications which covers the most senior Royals.
The issue of the influence of the Royal Family has come under renewed scrutiny in recent days after revelations that more than 1000 laws have been vetted by the Queen or Prince Charles through a secretive process, known as Queen’s Consent.
These included laws relating to justice, social security, pensions, race relations and food policy, as well as draft laws that affect the Queen’s personal property, according to the investigation by The Guardian. In response to a request for all correspondence sent to, or received from, Prince Charles in 2020, Defra confirmed it held “an item of correspondence”.
The Foreign Office confirmed it also held information relevant to the request, but did not provide any further details. The law was changed a decade ago to give more protection to senior royals from FOI after the battle over the “black spider” memos – so-called because of Prince Charles’ scrawled handwriting.
They were released in 2015 after a 10-year legal fight, and revealed the heir to the throne’s lobbying of ministers on issues ranging from the Iraq war to herbal medicine.
Maurice Frankel, director of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, said the exemption for the senior royals was an “issue”.
He said: “Since the change, no-one has got [details of] correspondence with Prince Charles.
“The exemption is absolute in relation to the Queen, Prince Charles and the next in line to the throne.
“For the more junior royals, the exemption is still subject to the public interest test.”
He said the ruling to release the “black spider memos” had been made on the basis that the correspondence did not relate to Prince Charles’s constitutional role to prepare himself to become the monarch, but involved him lobbying on issues which he believed were important.
But Frankel added: “The issue about whether he is lobbying or preparing himself to become the sovereign at a future date is no longer relevant, as it is all subject to an absolute exemption – there is no right of access.
“We thought that was excessive – the public interest test had a proper place to play in relation to that.”
Graham Smith, chief executive of anti-monarchy group Republic, said the revelations about the Queen’s Consent made it more urgent to change FOI rules.
He said: “It’s time the royals were subject to the same level of scrutiny and openness as any government minister or Quango.
“The FOI Act has to change and has to allow the public to know the extent of Royal lobbying.
“Prince Charles has a long history of lobbying government ministers, and we have a right to know if he is having an impact on government policy, whether in Westminster or Holyrood.”
Clarence House did not respond to a request for comment.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel