Blink, and you might have missed the news this week that a panel of judges has decided that Prince Charles’ letters to government ministers are covered by the Freedom of Information Act.

Well, not all of them. The prince has been sharing his views with ministers for two decades or more. There are probably hundreds of them, with their distinctive fleur-de-lis letterhead and spidery writing, carefully filed in the depths of Whitehall. No, the judges’ ruling is that letters sent to Tony Blair’s ministers between 2004 and 2005 can be released into the public domain. The judgement comes after a Freedom of Information tribunal appeal led by the Guardian’s Rob Evans and their legal team, to which I gave evidence.

The tribunal was like something from Kafka. My experience of the legal system is limited. I have never been a witness or juror. I was asked to give evidence about my experience of the prince’s letters arriving in government departments, and the way they were put to the top of the pile. I thought I was being helpful, but when confronted by a bullish QC, in a Lubyanka-like room normally reserved for asylum cases, it felt like I was on trial. I’ve been quizzed by a parliamentary select committee, and that was a breeze compared to this.

Lined up against one wall were the legal teams from each government department, a total of perhaps 50 top lawyers. The Guardian’s legal team comprised, I think, one lawyer. Maybe it was two. It seemed like an unfair fight. Yet the judges, months later, have upheld the appeal. I was astonished.

The argument is not whether the Prince of Wales in entitled to write letters to ministers about his cherished causes: mutton farming, Islamic ceramics, organic food, homeopathy, English teaching, youth unemployment or traditional building design. Of course he is as entitled as you or me. Only once he is king will he be discouraged from such direct political lobbying, and confined to be consulted, to advise and to warn, in the Walter Bagehot formula. The point is whether the prince’s letters are given undue attention, and have unwarranted influence over governments.

The prince believes in the efficacy of ‘alternative and complementary medicine’. In 1993, he established the Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health, which received grants from the Department of Health (which is to say, from us).  The practice of alternative medicine is mired in controversy. Some call it ‘quackademic’ medicine.

Did Prince Charles lobby health ministers to increase funding for alternative medicine from the NHS? We know Andy Burnham was a visitor to Clarence House in October 2009 to discuss the matter. We know a reception was held at Clarence House to promote alternative medicines, including health minister Norman Warner, and the special adviser to the health secretary, who happened to be me. With the release of these letters, perhaps greater light will be shed on the campaigning, lobbying and behind-the-scenes influencing that has been going on, on health as well as all the other areas of concern to the prince.

Tony Blair considers the Freedom of Information Act to have been a major error. In his book he says:

‘Freedom of Information. Three harmless words. I look at those words as I write them, and feel like shaking my head till it drops off my shoulders. You idiot. You naive, foolish, irresponsible nincompoop. There is really no description of stupidity, no matter how vivid, that is adequate. I quake at the imbecility of it.

‘Once I appreciated the full enormity of the blunder, I used to say – more than a little unfairly – to any civil servant who would listen: Where was Sir Humphrey when I needed him? We had legislated in the first throes of power. How could you, knowing what you know have allowed us to do such a thing so utterly undermining of sensible government?’

I think that overstates the case. FOI might be a pain in the arse for the officials who have to administer it. But as we’ve seen in the years following Hillsborough, official secrecy is as corrosive as acid, scarring our democracy and barring justice.

It is in the public interest to know the extent of Prince Charles’s lobbying of ministers. The public will judge what impact, if any, it has on government policy and legislation. If I was Prince Charles, I wouldn’t wait for my letters to be dragged into the daylight, one after another, generating years’ worth of lurid news stories. I would publish the lot, in a coffee-table book, with a commentary by Jonathan Dimbleby. And I would use the royalties to fund the Prince’s Drawing School or the Mutton Renaissance Campaign.

—————————————————————————————

Paul Richards writes a weekly column for Progress, Paul’s week in politics. He tweets @LabourPaul

—————————————————————————————

Photo: Duncan Hall