The Green Party MP for Brighton Pavilion, Siân Berry, is preparing to introduce a bill that would bring the King and the Royal Household under the Freedom of Information Act, a move she says would end what she described as an “outrageous” carve-out that has kept the monarchy largely beyond public scrutiny.
Ms Berry’s proposed Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill would amend the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to classify the Sovereign and the Royal Household as public authorities, subjecting them to the same transparency requirements as government departments, local councils and other public bodies. The bill specifically seeks to extend coverage to the Royal Archive, the vast collection of historical documents housed at Windsor Castle’s Round Tower and spanning more than 250 years, as well as the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster.
Current legal exemptions
The current legal framework provides multiple layers of protection for royal communications. The Royal Household and the Sovereign are not listed as public authorities under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, meaning other public bodies can refuse to disclose communications with the monarch and his office. That general exemption is reinforced by Section 37 of the Act, which creates specific carve-outs for contact with the Royal Family.
Under Section 37, communications with the Sovereign, the heir to the throne and the second in line to the throne are subject to an absolute exemption. This means the usual public interest test, which would weigh the benefit of disclosure against the harm of withholding, does not apply. The exemption lasts for 20 years from the date the record was created, or five years from the death of the relevant person, whichever is later. Communications with other members of the Royal Family and the Royal Household receive a qualified exemption, meaning a public interest test can still be applied, but the same extended lifespan of 20 years or five years from death applies.
These protections were strengthened by amendments made through the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which widened the original exemptions and removed the public interest test for the innermost circle of the monarchy. At the time, Buckingham Palace reportedly lobbied against extending the Freedom of Information Act to the Royal Household, and the coalition government faced internal disputes over the issue.
The Act also contains broader exemptions that can be used to shield royal information, including protections for information likely to prejudice the UK’s foreign relations, advice to ministers on policy formulation, details that might compromise national security, and secret special forces missions or MPs’ residential addresses.
The Royal Archive itself is not treated as a public record. Access is currently at the discretion of the Keeper of the Royal Archives, and the collection is subject only to the Data Protection Act and the General Data Protection Regulation, rather than freedom of information rules. The Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster are also largely outside the scope of FOI law. A 2016 tribunal decision confirmed that the Duchy of Cornwall is not bound by the Environmental Information Regulations, although a separate First-tier Tribunal has ruled that the Duchy qualifies as a public authority under those same regulations in certain circumstances. The Duchy of Lancaster, which performs public functions such as administering estates of those who die intestate and appointing High Sheriffs, also keeps its archives outside FOI law.
Ms Berry told the Press Association that enabling the release of royal-related documents and data would “be a huge step for transparency in what has been a shadowy institution for far too long”. She added: “It is outrageous that there is a specific carve-out under freedom of information legislation for the royal family. This unnecessarily shields what should be a perfectly normally accountable part of our constitution, and it has to go.” She clarified that her proposal aims to scrutinise the royal family’s use of public assets, focusing on “things that are part of the job, not part of their own private lives”.
The bill has been prepared against a backdrop of increasing pressure on the government to release royal documents. Earlier this year, MPs voted to demand the publication of papers concerning Prince Andrew’s 2001 appointment as a special representative for trade and investment. A subsequent 31-page dossier revealed attempts to prevent the former Duke of York from being offered “golfing functions” overseas, and noted his preference for “ballet rather than the theatre”. Prince Andrew was arrested in February on suspicion of misconduct in public office, interviewed under caution, and remains under investigation. The case highlighted how existing laws can shield royal appointments from public examination.
For the bill to become law, it would require presentation to Parliament and approval from both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The government is not expected to support any initiatives to bring the royal family under freedom of information legislation.
