It came as a surprise to many that the Queen and Prince Charles are not only asked to consider legislation before it goes onto the statute book but effectively have the power of veto as well.
The Guardian story provided information and details gathered as a result of a Freedom of Information (FoI) request. However, it was largely because of how the Cabinet Office dealt with the FoI request that the paper was able to talk about the ‘secretive powers of veto’ (emphasis added).
It helped the Guardian to build its story and gave it more impact than it may otherwise have had. Looking at the list of legislation over which the Royals were consulted reveals few surprises – most are directly relevant to the position and authority of the Monarch, the use of the symbols of the Monarchy, etc, though there are some surprises – who knew that Prince Charles is consulted about shipping laws because the Duchy of Cornwall runs the harbours on the Scilly Isles?
Instead of looking at the balance of the potential story it appears that the Cabinet Office, as is common amongst many public authorities, took the view that they needed to fight the FoI request almost as it were on principle.
This opens up a wider discussion about how public authorities deal with FoI requests. Many simply consider that the information should remain secret and fight it. They do not always think through the communications implications or how stakeholders will react to information being kept secret with taxpayers money being spent trying to keep information away from the public.
This may be because those making the decisions are not responsible for communications and / or do not talk to their communications people. This approach also means that if the FoI request is lost then the public authority is on the back foot in communications terms, because, even if the requested information turns out not to be that interesting, the requester can spin a story out of the attempts to keep it secret. In this case the Cabinet Office lost, appealed and then gave in, which compounded the situation.
Whilst, of course, each case has to be looked at on its own merits, it is a perfectly acceptable solution to make the information available from the outset and say ‘yes’ to the FoI request. The authority would then be in a better position to manage the release of the information on their terms.
They could, for instance, spoil the story by issuing the information before the media are ready to publish. It also gives a better chance to get their explanation out. Controlling the information provides the opportunity of being on the front foot and having to be less reactive.
Too many public authorities currently take a reactive stance on FoI requests which does not consider the importance of reputation.
For those involved in public affairs, the story also reveals an additional need to consider any implications of the issue / legislation on the powers of the Monarch. It means that we have to be particularly aware of how the final version of any legislation may be viewed and it may also require some additional stakeholders to be briefed.
Public authorities need a better appreciation of the options open to them when it comes to FoI and to consider all of them from the outset – fighting the request may not be in their best interest and can inflict substantial reputational damage. In the case of the Cabinet Office, they may well have inflicted damage on the reputation of themselves, Parliament and the Royals.