Vanhalen 0 Report post Posted June 24, 2004 Thousands of pounds have been spent on tying royal servants into tighter confidentiality agreements, Buckingham Palace has revealed. An annual review of the Queen's Civil List expenditure showed legal bills soared by £125,000 in 2003 to cover one-off costs for new staff contracts. These aim to stop royal staff leaking private details to the press. The accounts showed the yearly cost of funding the Queen rose by a penny per person to 61p - £36.8m in total. Buckingham Palace said the increase was a 1% reduction in real terms. Private lives More state visits, overseas tours and ceremonial costs accounted for much of the 1.7% increase in Head of State expenditure for the financial year 2003-4. Legal bills for drawing up new royal staff contracts are expected to be a one-off expense. The move is part of a three-year review of measures to stop leaks about the private lives of the royal family. The wording in contracts for staff from every level up to the Lord Chamberlain has been strengthened to avoid legal loopholes. Staff now sign a personal confidentiality agreement with the Queen - and if they breach it, any money they make must be given to charity. It follows revelations from undercover Daily Mirror reporter Ryan Parry, who got a job as a palace footman, and former royal butler Paul Burrell. The Property Grant-in-Aid budget - which pays for running royal premises, including maintenance, utilities and telephones - will be frozen at £15m until 2005-6. The Queen is believed to have changed her energy supplier as part of a cost-cutting operation. Alan Reid, the Keeper of the Privy Purse, argued funding the Queen was not a great expense for UK residents. He said: "This year's expenditure per person, per annum, amounts to 61p or less than two pints of milk." Ceremonial costs contributed to a rise in the Queen's spending The BBC's royal correspondent Nicholas Witchell said critics might question the continuing high cost of the royal train. The accounts show it was used 18 times over the 12-month period, adding up to £43,000 per use. The Duke of York may also face questions over a £90,000 trip to the Caribbean as an ambassador for UK trade. Buckingham Palace said the below-inflation rise was the result of an ongoing effort to cut costs. Mr Reid said: "We want full transparency and clarity. We believe that we publish more information than any other organisation in the country, including public companies, and we believe that this helps that." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zorin Industries 0 Report post Posted June 24, 2004 I would like to follow the French example for dealing with a Monarchy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest INXS Report post Posted June 24, 2004 What's the French example? I don't begrudge her having 61p a year off me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zorin Industries 0 Report post Posted June 24, 2004 THATS the French example Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest cobainwasmurdered Report post Posted June 24, 2004 there's nothing wrong with the Monarchy. They're decent figureheads and they bring in alot of money from Tourism. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zorin Industries 0 Report post Posted June 24, 2004 Everyone mentions the tourisim, but I have to say I think its the palaces and the like which bring in the tourists rather than the Queen herself. I mean its not like the Queen comes out to meet and greet every single tourist who comes by. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest SideFXs Report post Posted June 24, 2004 How much have the creeping socialist, in England, increased their budgets? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tommytomlin 0 Report post Posted June 25, 2004 All monarchies do is teach little English and Australian and Canadian boys and girls that some people are just BORN lucky, and that all the hard work in the world won't change that. OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!@w Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
