Prince Charles and FOI
Occasionally it becomes clear how some basic principles of the UK's freedom of information rules have not penetrated the highest offices in the land.
On Monday tackled the question of whether Prince Charles plays too political a role. The programme referred two or three times to the Royal Household's exemption from FOI and the consequence that some information which the programme-makers had sought was not available.
The programme has produced from the Prince's Private Secretary, Sir Michael Peat. In a to the programme-makers which itemises his many criticisms of their approach, he states: 'Parliament confirmed in Section 37 of the Freedom of Information Act that communications between Members of the Royal Family and Ministers should generally remain confidential.'
Not quite, Sir Michael. In fact, states that such communications should be disclosed unless there is an over-riding public interest in keeping them secret. There should be a presumption of openness, not a presumption of confidentiality.
In practice government departments are very reluctant to release communications with the Prince. However the Ministry of Defence did send the 91Èȱ¬ this one. Who says the age of deference is dead?
In fact, I read in Sir Michael's letter that the age we live in today is actually the 'value added age'. I have not previously come across this description of contemporary times, and feel puzzled. For the Prince this apparently means that he has decided to add value to his position by making an active contribution to national life. What it means for the rest of us I'm not sure, except that we pay VAT.
A 
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
The Geoffrey Hoon signed letter was interesting for several reasons. As you said - deference and the alphabet soup that follows HRH's name.
"Your Royal Highness" was hand written - suggesting a proforma letter being utilised. The Armed Services, The Civil Service and the Government Dept all get boiled down to a Geoffrey Hoon "my" in the best wishes for your engagement.
And the postscript, also handwritten, seemed to say exactly what the main body of the letter said with the addition of the word "personal"
So remembering the centuries of interesting history between Parliament and certain Royal Family members - if Mr Hoon hadn't added that hand written postscript - can one assume that the typed good wish message was only formal good manners?
This version was released but I am having fun imagining what drafts may have been written before this final one was issued to Prince Charles and what not so deferential comments got the chop.
I have the honour to remain Sir!
So can we look forward to the 91Èȱ¬ not hiding behind the FOI act and publishing it's own internal investigation into Anti-Isreali bias in your Middle East reporting?.
God the 91Èȱ¬ are hypocrites, you should remember people in glass houses etc.
No doubt His Royal Highness will have appreciated the fact that the Secretary of State's letter was printed on recycled paper!