Green Party MP targets King and Royal Household for Freedom of Information transparency

Green Party MP Pushes for Royal Family to Be Subject to Freedom of Information Act

Green Party MP targets King and Royal - As public scrutiny of the monarchy intensifies, a prominent Green Party member of Parliament has proposed a legislative change that would extend the Freedom of Information Act to include the King and the Royal Household. This initiative, spearheaded by Sian Berry, the MP representing Brighton Pavilion, aims to address long-standing concerns about the opacity of royal operations and ensure greater accountability within the institution.

Berry’s plan involves amending the 26-year-old Freedom of Information Act 2000, which currently applies to public bodies but excludes the monarchy. Under the existing law, the Royal Household and the Sovereign are not classified as public authorities, enabling other government departments to withhold documents related to their interactions with the royal family. This exemption has been a point of contention for critics who argue it allows the monarchy to operate with limited transparency.

According to Berry, the proposed amendment would create a pathway for the public to access royal-related information, including correspondence, financial records, and administrative data. She emphasized that this change would represent a “huge step for transparency” in an institution often described as secretive and detached from democratic processes. The Royal Archive, a sprawling repository of historical records stored at Windsor Castle’s Round Tower, and the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster—monetary estates managed by the royal family—would also fall under the scope of the new legislation.

The push for greater openness comes amid growing pressure on the government to reveal documents typically shielded by royal exemptions. Earlier this year, a pivotal moment occurred when Parliament passed a motion urging the publication of records about Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s 2001 appointment as a special trade representative. This decision was preceded by the release of a 31-page dossier that detailed efforts to limit the former Duke of York’s public engagements, such as excluding him from overseas golfing events. The dossier also highlighted his personal preferences, including a preference for ballet over theatre, suggesting a deliberate attempt to curate his public image.

Berry’s focus on the monarchy’s use of public assets has drawn attention to the need for accountability in its operations. She argues that the royal family should be subject to the same transparency standards as other government entities, particularly when it comes to matters involving public funds or institutional decisions. “It is outrageous that there is a specific carve-out under freedom of information legislation for the royal family,” Berry stated. “This unnecessarily shields what should be a perfectly normal part of our constitution, and it has to go.”

Her campaign builds on a broader movement to challenge the monarchy’s traditional exemptions from democratic oversight. While the Freedom of Information Act already includes several provisions to protect sensitive information—such as those safeguarding secret military operations or MPs’ private residences—Berry believes the royal family’s status as an independent entity has been used to justify excessive secrecy. She pointed to Section 37 of the law, which exempts communications with the sovereign and their heirs, as a key target for reform. This section has been cited in cases where documents related to the monarchy’s decision-making processes were withheld from public view.

Others have raised concerns about the implications of such an amendment. For instance, the law’s existing exemptions include provisions to protect information that could harm foreign relations, advice given to ministers, and details that might compromise national security. These safeguards, while justified by some as necessary for diplomatic or strategic reasons, have also been used to justify the royal family’s privacy in matters unrelated to public interest. Berry, however, maintains that the monarchy’s functions should be transparent, distinguishing between official duties and private affairs.

The proposed Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill would require passage through both Houses of Parliament, facing potential opposition from the government. Critics argue that the monarchy’s unique position as a constitutional institution grants it a level of autonomy that should not be fully subjected to FOIA. Nevertheless, Berry’s proposal has sparked a debate about whether the royal family’s operations should be held to the same standards as other public bodies.

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, who was recently arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office, has become a focal point in this discussion. The case, which unfolded in February 2023, involved his alleged involvement in a scheme to misappropriate funds. His arrest under caution and ongoing investigation have further intensified calls for greater transparency, with some questioning whether the royal family’s influence over public assets should be subject to public scrutiny.

Supporters of Berry’s initiative highlight the importance of holding all branches of government to the same accountability standards. They argue that the monarchy, despite its historical role, should not be exempt from the democratic principle of openness. By extending the Freedom of Information Act, they believe the public would gain access to critical insights into the royal family’s financial dealings, policy decisions, and communications with government officials.

"This amendment would ensure the royal family is no longer able to hide behind a special exemption," Berry explained. "It’s time for them to be treated like any other public authority, especially when their actions impact the taxpayer and the nation’s interests."

Berry’s proposal is part of a larger effort to modernize the monarchy’s relationship with the public. While the royal family has long enjoyed a degree of independence, critics contend that this independence should not come at the expense of transparency. The debate reflects a broader cultural shift, with increasing demands for accountability in all aspects of governance, including the symbolic head of state.

As the discussion continues, the government’s stance remains firm, with officials expressing reluctance to expand the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to include the royal household. Yet, the momentum behind Berry’s initiative suggests that the push for greater transparency may gain traction, particularly as public interest in the monarchy’s activities grows. Whether this leads to a meaningful reform or merely a symbolic gesture will depend on the political climate and the willingness of lawmakers to challenge longstanding traditions.

In the meantime, the case of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor serves as a reminder of the scrutiny the royal family is now facing. His arrest and the subsequent release of documents about his role as a special representative have provided a glimpse into the potential benefits of extending FOIA to the monarchy. For Berry, this represents an opportunity to transform the royal household into a more open and accountable institution, aligning it with the principles of democracy that underpin the rest of the UK’s governance.

Ultimately, the proposed amendment seeks to bridge the gap between the monarchy’s traditional secrecy and the public’s right to know. By ensuring that royal-related information is accessible, Berry hopes to foster a more transparent relationship between the monarchy and the people it serves. As the debate unfolds, the question remains: can the royal family truly become a model of accountability, or will its exemptions continue to shield it from public oversight?