Summary British Green Party MP Sian Berry has drafted a bill to subject the monarch and the royal household to the Freedom of Information Act for the first time since its enactment 26 years ago, a step she describes as a 'big leap towards transparency' if it occurs. The government does not support this effort, which comes amid mounting pressure on the palace after the case of former prince Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, and the monarchy's popularity declining to its lowest level in three decades.

The British Parliament will debate on Tuesday a bill introduced by Sian Berry, the Green Party MP in the House of Commons, to amend the Freedom of Information Act to include the royal household for the first time in the modern history of the United Kingdom.

The Freedom of Information Act, issued in 2000, is legislation that grants the public the right to request information from public authorities such as ministries and local councils, and came into full effect at the start of 2005.

Berry considers it 'shameful that there is an exemption for the royal family in freedom of information legislation,' as this exemption 'unjustifiably conceals part of the constitution that should naturally be accountable.' The MP described opening royal documents and data to public scrutiny as a 'huge step towards transparency in an institution that has remained obscure for too long.'

The proposed amendment aims to expand the scope of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to include the royal household, the Royal Archives, the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, as well as correspondence of the monarch and public bodies, areas currently exempt from the law in its current form.

Berry stressed that her proposal focuses on the royal family's use of public assets and their official functions, i.e., 'matters that are part of the job, not their private lives,' as she put it.

The Royal Archives is a vast collection of historical documents spanning more than 250 years, housed in the Round Tower at Windsor Castle west of London. The Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster are of particular importance because the former funds the Prince of Wales and is currently owned by Prince William, while the latter constitutes the private estate that generates income for the British monarch.

Read more

Openness and freedom of information no longer have value in Britain

Prince Harry accuses the royal family of withholding information from him

What did the royal family photographer say about the altered photo of Kate Middleton?

Berry's bill is still in its early stages, and its chances of becoming law seem slim, as private members' bills rarely complete their legislative path without government support. Only six such bills received royal assent in the 2024-2026 parliamentary session. However, this does not negate the value of the initiative in reopening debate on the transparency of the royal institution and embarrassing the government by forcing it to publicly justify its opposition.

Berry is betting on growing momentum in the House of Commons regarding palace issues, which was evident earlier this year when MPs voted to demand the government publish all documents related to the appointment of former prince Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor as a special representative for trade and investment in 2001.

The exemption of the royal family dates back to the creation of the Freedom of Information Act in 2000, as the royal household was not included in the definition of 'public authorities' subject to it, meaning the law did not directly apply to it. Legislators at the time added Section 37, which granted a conditional exemption for correspondence with the monarch, other members of the royal family, and the royal household held by public bodies. This was officially justified by the need to preserve the political neutrality of the Crown, protect the confidentiality of constitutional communication between the monarch and his ministers, and considerations relating to personal security.

In 2010, a greater shift came with the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act, passed in the final days of Gordon Brown's government ahead of the general election. It turned the conditional exemption into an absolute exemption regarding correspondence of the monarch, the heir to the throne, and the second in line to the throne, with the exemption applying for 20 years from the date of creation of the document or five years after the death of the person concerned, whichever is longer. These amendments came into effect in January 2011.

MP Sian Berry, author of the Freedom of Information Act amendment bill (Getty)

The timing of the tightening of the exemption in 2010 was not separate from a famous legal battle known as the 'Black Spider Memos' case, which were letters sent by then-Prince Charles to ministers in seven government departments between 2004 and 2005, named for his distinctive handwriting. Journalist Rob Evans of The Guardian newspaper filed a request in 2005 to access these memos under the Freedom of Information Act, sparking a legal battle that lasted a full decade. Labour MP Tony Wright described the 2010 amendments at the time as 'the Prince Charles amendment' because they seemed designed to close the door on similar requests in the future.

The 'Black Spider Memos' case ended in March 2015 with a landmark ruling by the British Supreme Court ordering the release of the memos, after overturning the attorney general's use of a ministerial veto to prevent disclosure. However, the ruling came too late after the 2010 amendments, which had already shielded any subsequent correspondence of this type with absolute exemption, meaning that repeating The Guardian's experiment is now impossible. This is precisely what Berry's bill seeks to change.

If Berry's amendment is passed, the royal household will be classified for the first time as an authority subject to information requests, opening the door for journalists, researchers, and citizens to scrutinize the palace's management of public funds, household expenses, the duchies' contracts and revenues, the contents of the Royal Archives, as well as revealing correspondence between the monarch and ministries and public bodies that is currently completely withheld. This would allow tracking any royal attempts to influence legislation or government policies, an issue repeatedly raised by activists regarding the Crown's historical right to prior access to draft laws affecting its interests.

In contrast, the amendment will not affect other existing exemptions in the law, such as those related to covert special forces operations, ministerial advice on policy formulation, and information that could harm the United Kingdom's foreign relations or national security. It aims solely to abolish the 'royal exemption.' Berry also stresses that the private lives of royal family members will remain outside the scope of the law, in an attempt to defuse the most prominent objection to her proposal.

King Charles III recently disclosed his personal tax records for the first time, a move interpreted as a proactive response to mounting disclosure pressures. But between a reluctant government, a palace making calculated concessions, and an MP betting on public opinion, it seems the battle for royal transparency in Britain is no longer a question of 'if,' but 'when and to what extent.'