Info Gov

Although there has been some improvement in transparency releases since the Labour government came into office, there is “enormous room for improvement”, a report commissioned by the Ethics and Integrity Commission has found.

The EIC asked Spotlight on Corruption, Transparency International UK and Unlock Democracy to conduct research into the operation of government transparency releases as part of its Lobbying, Disclosure, and Access to Government Review.

The report outlined a number of issues around the publication of transparency releases – which reveal who has access to key decision makers in Government – including:

a. Although there has been an improvement in timeliness since Q4 2024, there is no guarantee that this will continue, and transparency releases are still not published until 3-6 months after the meetings have taken place. This lack of timeliness can mean that the public is not aware of who the government is meeting in the crucial stages before bills are passed or decisions are made.

b. The meaningfulness of descriptions has remained the same throughout the past three years, with no noticeable improvement and the continued use of generic descriptors in contravention of Cabinet Office guidance.

c. There are significant gaps in the data where officials have not included meetings that we know from other sources took place.

d. The files are difficult to find and even more difficult to search, being published across 24 locations per quarter (for ministerial releases alone), in different file formats, with different file names, despite five years passing since CSPL and the Boardman review recommending transparency releases be centralised. This compares unfavourably to the searchability of other countries’ equivalent transparency releases.

e. Transparency releases are difficult, and sometimes impossible, to reconcile with the Lobbying Register, such as where it is not stated in the transparency register which client a consultant lobbyist is representing and where they are listed as having multiple clients in the Lobbying Register.

f. The transparency releases do not have explicitly stated objectives. We can infer objectives for them, including informing the public, holding politicians to account, and improving public trust, but the releases do not seem to be meeting these.

The EIC expects to publish its recommendations in July.

Also in this section

Sep 11, 2026

Tribunal backs NPCC cost-limit refusal of request on Chinese-made police surveillance cameras

The First-tier Tribunal has dismissed an appeal against the National Police Chiefs' Council's refusal to confirm whether it holds information on the proportion of Chinese-manufactured surveillance cameras used by UK police forces, finding that the cost of establishing whether the information existed would exceed the appropriate limit under section 12(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Sep 01, 2026

Upper Tribunal breaks with Moss and recognises article 10 right to receive information in FOIA appeals

The Upper Tribunal has held that First-tier and Upper Tribunals are not bound by precedent to automatically reject the limited right to receive information under article 10 (“Freedom of Expression”) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) recognised by the Grand Chamber in Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v Hungary departing from the 2020 decision in Moss v Information Commissioner ( that had…
Aug 27, 2026

DfE "acting in concert" argument on repeated requests rejected as campaigner's appeals fail

The First-tier Tribunal has dismissed three appeals brought by campaigner Dr Robert Abrahart against the Department for Education, upholding two findings that his requests were vexatious under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and confirming in the third that emails withheld under sections 35 and 42 were exempt, while rejecting the department's attempt to treat requests from…

InfoGov Masthead Newsletter 800