Labour’s war on transparency
Labour are breaking their own rules and showing total contempt for Parliament
NEIL O’BRIEN
Under Labour it has become totally normal to completely ignore Parliamentary Questions.
Labour set out rules that anything which should be released under Freedom of Information (FOI) legislation should be released in answer to a Parliamentary Question.
But again and again they break their own rules and promises. They refuse to answer a question in Parliament, are forced to under FOI law.
But we have been keeping the receipts – particularly my colleague Sheridan Westlake.
This arrogant approach isn’t just treating Parliament and MPs with contempt. It undermines good government and the basic point of democracy. Sunlight is a good disinfectant. An open government is more likely to learn from mistakes than one which covers them up. Corruption, rule breaking and dodgy decisions are less likely when everyone can see what’s going on.
Ironically, the government has passed the “Hillsborough Law” with a “duty of candour” for public officials. But their behaviour towards Parliament and transparency shows that they think they are above their own laws – clearly the new law is only supposed to apply to the little people – not grand Labour ministers.
Let me show you what I mean.
“As open as possible”
Section 1.6(d) of the Ministerial Code states:
“d. Ministerial office requires candour and openness. Ministers should demand and welcome candid advice. They should be as open as possible with Parliament and the public, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest which should be decided in accordance with the relevant statutes and the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Ministers breach this every day now. Far from being “as open as possible” they are refusing to answer questions any previous government would have answered. Here are some of the ways:
- You ask for information, Ministers say they have “no plans” to publish it
When asked to publish specific documents, Ministers simply reply there are “no plans” to publish such documents. Yes, the whole point is that we are asking you to publish them!
No attempt is given to provide a rationale or public interest justification, as required by the Ministerial Code. Some examples:
“Mike Wood: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, if he will publish the guidance issued to departments referenced in the letter from the Paymaster General to the Institute for Government of 14 October 2025.
Nick Thomas-Symonds: There are no plans to publish this guidance.”
Sure, but that wasn’t the question we asked.
“Mike Wood: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, if he will publish the Government Communications Service Inclusive communications template.
Nick Thomas-Symonds: There are currently no plans to publish this template.”
They don’t feel they need to even give a reason:
“Kevin Hollinrake: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, if he will publish the correspondence from the Permanent Secretary to his Department to the Hon Member for Thirsk & Malton of 24 November 2025.
Anna Turley: There are no plans to publish this correspondence.”
Should you be allowed to see if your money is being spent on Labour propaganda? Labour don’t think so:
“Charlie Dewhirst: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to the Answer of 21 October 2025 to Question 82673 on Government Departments: Social Media, how much has been spent on the two agencies for influencer work since July 2024.
Nick Thomas-Symonds: There are no plans to publish specific financial details in the public domain.”
- Information is often refused because they say it is not “routinely” published or is “not subject to external publication” – a term with no meaning
Information is now sometimes denied on the basis that there is no “routine” publication – taking the denials a step further, in requiring regular publication (rather than ad hoc) to justify disclosure to Parliament.
The idea that information can be refused from publication to Parliament because it is not published is a wonderfully circular argument, worthy of Sir Humphrey himself:
“Mike Wood: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, if he will publish the Model Contract for Senior Civil Servants.
Anna Turley: Contracts for SCS are not published publicly, so we will not be publishing a model contract.”
Another spurious justification that a request for information is “not subject to external publication”. This has no legal basis or meaning whatsoever:
“Mike Wood: To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, if he will place in the Library a copy of any correspondence between his Department and the Commissioner for Public Appointments relating to public appointments without open and fair competition since 1 July 2024.
Justin Madders: Under the Governance Code for Public Appointments there is no requirement to publish correspondence between the Department and the Commissioner for Public Appointments.”
Documents may also be refused because they are supposedly “internal-facing” – again there is no legal basis for this:
“Mike Wood: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, if he will publish the Civil Service Recruitment Framework.
Anna Turley: The Civil Service Recruitment Framework exists to ensure vacancies are consistently accessible to the widest possible pool of talent. There are no plans to publish this internal-facing framework to the public domain, as it constitutes HR-to-HR guidance designed for departments to integrate into their respective policies and processes.”
When pressed for a copy of a terms of reference of a committee, Ministers refused on the grounds that a Cabinet Office code did not “require” publication. On this basis, no question would ever be answered unless there was a Government Code requiring publication.
“Mike Wood: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, with reference to the Cabinet Office Annual report and accounts 2024-2025, HC1372, 23 October 2025, if he will publish the terms of reference of the Staff Board.
Nick Thomas-Symonds: The Staff Board serves in an advisory capacity to the Executive Committee and is not a mandatory component of the Corporate Governance Code. Its Terms of Reference are not subject to external publication.”
Asked for a justification, ministers give circular answers: we don’t need to publish it because… well, we just don’t need to publish it.
“Mike Wood: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to the answer of 26 November 2025 to Question 92016 on Civil Service: Management, for what reason the Terms of Reference are not subject to external publication.
Nick Thomas-Symonds: The Corporate governance in central government departments: code of good practice (2017) does not require publication of board and committee Terms of Reference.”
There are some non-answers which would make even sir Humphrey blush:
“Mike Wood: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, if he will place in the Library a copy of the Honours Committees handbook.”
Nick Thomas-Symonds: The Honours Committees handbook is a document used on their appointment to induct independent committee members and chairs to the honours system and the committee process.”
Ministers sometimes just assert that the information “will not be published” or “are not published”. No reason of any kind is given:
“David Simmonds: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer of 5 November 2025, to Question 86426, on Asylum: Housing, If she will publish a copy of the pre-procurement documentation sent to potential suppliers of asylum accommodation for the next round of contracts.
Alex Norris: The pre-procurement documentation for the Future Asylum Contract Transformation Project will not be published.”
So much for “as open as possible.
Breaking their own rules
You can see the extent to which Labour are treating Parliament and voters with total contempt by the way they release information under the Freedom of Information Act which they refuse to give to Parliament.
We have proven this through a series of Freedom of Information Act requests. In the requests, we have explicitly cited a Parliament Question refusing to disclose the information, and then asked for that information under FOI. This subsequent release under FOI is contrary to the Government’s own stated position.
The Cabinet Office Guide to Parliamentary Work (November 2024) states:
“Every question should be approached with a predisposition to give relevant information fully. There should be no inconsistencies between the provision of information in answers to written questions and information given under the FOI Act, therefore, if information would be released under FOI, it would also be released in response to a WPQ/QWA.”
The (then) Leader of the House of Commons confirmed this approach in October 2024:
“if information would be released under FOI, it would also be released in response to a WPQ”.
And yet again and again and again this thing that should supposedly never happen is happening. There are zillions of examples, but here are 26 for starters – one for each letter of the alphabet:
A) Special adviser training / induction manual
Original refusal: Hansard, 29 October 2024, PQ10436, – saying “no plans” to publish (link).
Released by Cabinet Office under FOI, ref: FOI2024/14571 (this was a multi-part FOI response) on 17 December 2024.
A subsequent question was tabled forcing the department to publish the FOI disclosure – to make the point it should have been released in the first place. Post-FOI release: Hansard, 21 January 2025, PQ23470, (link).
B) No10 Travel Expenses guidance
Original refusal: Hansard, 27 November 2024, PQ14976, – government “does not publish” (link).
Released by Cabinet Office under FOI, ref: FOI2025/01531, on 28 February 2025.
A subsequent question was tabled forcing the department to publish the FOI disclosure – to make the point it should have been released in the first place. Post-FOI release: Hansard, 8 April 2025, PQ42614, (link).
C) Special adviser pay
Original refusal: Hansard, 29 October 2024, PQ10440, (link); Hansard, 15 October 2024, PQ7440 – non answer (link).
Released by Cabinet Office under FOI, ref: FOI2024/14571 (this was a multi-part FOI response) on 4 December 2024.
A subsequent question was tabled forcing the department to publish the FOI disclosure – to make the point it should have been released in the first place. Post-FOI release: Hansard, 12 February 2025, PQ28578, (link).
D) Cabinet Office trade union facility time agreement
Original refusal: Hansard, 21 October 2024, PQ8814, – it is “not published” (link).
Disclosed by Cabinet Office under FOI, ref: FOI2024/14572 (this was a multi-part FOI response) on 31 December 2024.
A subsequent question was tabled forcing the department to publish the FOI disclosure – to make the point it should have been released in the first place. Post-FOI release: Hansard, 13 May 2025, PQ49389, (link).
E) List of responsibilities of No10 special advisers
Original refusal: Hansard, 18 October 2024, PQ8425, – “the Government does not publish” (link).
Disclosed by Cabinet Office under FOI, ref: FOI2024/14571 (this was a multi-part FOI response) on 11 December 2024.
A subsequent question was tabled forcing the department to publish the FOI disclosure – to make the point it should have been released in the first place. Post-FOI release: Hansard, 9 May 2025, PQ42608, (link).
F) No9 Media Room Refurbishment
Original refusal: Hansard, 22 January 2025, PQ23884, “will be published in due course” (link).
Released by Cabinet Office under FOI, ref: FOI2025/01530 on 28 February 2025.
A subsequent question was tabled forcing the department to publish the FOI disclosure – to make the point it should have been released in the first place. Post-FOI release: Hansard, 3 April 2025, PQ41653, (link).
G) Domestic flights by the Prime Minister
Original refusals: Hansard, 28 March 2025, PQ39688, (link); Hansard, 6 March 2025, PQ34453, – non answer (link).
Released by Cabinet Office under FOI, ref: FOI2025/05760 on 14 May 2025.
A subsequent question was tabled forcing the department to publish the FOI disclosure – to make the point it should have been released in the first place. Post-FOI release: Hansard, 6 June 2025, PQ53886, (link).
H) Cabinet Office Honours Handbook
Original refusal: Hansard, 7 April 2025, PQ43222, – non answer (link).
Released by Cabinet Office under FOI, ref: FOI2025/05759 of 16 May 2025.
A subsequent question was tabled forcing the department to publish the FOI disclosure – to make the point it should have been released in the first place. Post-FOI release: Hansard, 2 June 2025, PQ54277, (link).
I) Government Communications Service numbers
Original refusal: Hansard, 5 December 2024, PQ16512, “a risk that individuals could be identified.” (link).
Released by Cabinet Office under FOI, ref: FOI Internal Review response – IR2025/05101 of 29 May 2025.
A subsequent question was tabled forcing the department to publish the FOI disclosure – to make the point it should have been released in the first place. Post-FOI release: Hansard, 4 September 2025, PQ70468, (link).
J) Communication spending savings
Original refusal: Hansard, 30 January 2025, PQ25685, “currently no plans to publish” (link).
Released by Cabinet Office under FOI, ref: FOI2025/05753 of 12 June.
A subsequent question was tabled forcing the department to publish the FOI disclosure – to make the point it should have been released in the first place. Post-FOI release: Hansard, 7 July 2025, PQ64559, (link).
K) FCDO/Embassy Government Art Collection
Original refusal: Hansard, 13 May 2025, PQ50572, points to information which does not exist (link).
Released by DCMS under FOI, ref: FOI2025/05106, of 8 July 2025.
L) Cabinet Office staff without jobs
Original refusal: Hansard, 8 May 2025, PQ48950, “the precise staffing level is subject to continuous adjustments.” (link).
Released by Cabinet Office under FOI, ref: FOI2025/09675 of 11 July 2025.
A subsequent question was tabled forcing the department to publish the FOI disclosure – to make the point it should have been released in the first place. Post-FOI release: Hansard, 28 October 2025, PQ71227, (link).
M) Ministers with criminal convictions
Original refusal: Hansard, 15 January 2025, PQ22458, (link).
Released by Cabinet Office under FOI, ref: FOI2025/05758 of 10 July 2025.
A subsequent question was tabled forcing the department to publish the FOI disclosure – to make the point it should have been released in the first place. Post-FOI release: Hansard, 3 December 2025, PQ94209, (link).
N) Special Advisers FDA recognition
Original refusal: Hansard, 10 April 2025, PQ44032, “The government does not publish such information.” (link).
Released by Cabinet Office under FOI, ref: FOI2025/09624 of 16 July 2025.
A subsequent question was tabled forcing the department to publish the FOI disclosure – to make the point it should have been released in the first place. Post-FOI release: Hansard, 15 October 2025, PQ73720, (link).
O) £34.7 billion cost of Chagos deal
Original refusal: Hansard, 26 June 2025, PQ61200, “it is not normal practice for government departments to release details” (link).
Released by Government Actuary Department, under FOI, internal review, Ref: FOI252626, 4 August 2025.
A subsequent question was tabled forcing HM Treasury to publish the FOI disclosure – to make the point it should have been released in the first place. Post-FOI release: Hansard, 8 January 2026, PQ101383, (link).
-This disclosure is particularly concerning given the Ministry of Defence has told Parliament the £34.7 billion figure is “incorrect”, yet the FOI shows the figure was clearly provided by the Government Actuary Department (Hansard, 26 November 2025, PQ92657, link).
P) Sue Gray severance payment
Original refusal: Lords Hansard, 20 November 2024, PQ HL1816, (link); (this question was blocked from being tabled by the Commons Table Office) – “it is not appropriate to comment on individuals”
Released by the Cabinet Office further to the ICO appeal application, ICO reference IC-390141-T8J5, further to the Cabinet Office FOI reference FOI2025/01532; released on 4 August 2025.
A subsequent question was tabled forcing the department to publish the FOI disclosure – to make the point it should have been released in the first place. Post-FOI release Hansard, 3 September 2025, PQ73313, (link); Hansard, 2 September 2025, PQ69874, (link).
Q) Admiralty House ministerial residences
Original refusal: Hansard, 27 March 2025, PQ52870, “we do not disclose” (link).
Released by Cabinet Office, under FOI, ref: FOI2025/09713 on 12 August 2025.
R) Wind farms environmental principles assessment
Original refusal: Hansard, 1 August 2024, PQ1517, “not published routinely” (link).
This was released by MHCLG under EIR, ref: EIR2024/17924, on 17 September 2024.
A subsequent question asked for this EIR disclosure to be published, but Ministers refused again. This is particularly poor – as Ministers are knowingly refusing to release information to Parliament that has already been released into the public domain. There can be no ‘public interest’ reason for refusing to disclose such material.
This second refusal saw the minister repeating his original answer!
“Kevin Hollinrake: for what reason the requested information was released under the EIR regime; and if he will now publish that substantive disclosure.”
Matthew Pennycook: “Environmental principles assessments are not routinely published”
S) Permanent Secretary model contract
Original refusal: Lords Hansard, 19 May 2025, PQ HL7118, “not published publicly” (link).
Released by Cabinet Office under FOI, ref: FOI2025/09712, on 9 September 2025.
A subsequent question was tabled forcing the department to publish the FOI disclosure – to make the point it should have been released in the first place: Hansard, 9 December 2025, PQ95641, (link).
T) DESNZ Ministers domestic flights
Original refusal: Hansard, 17 June 2025, PQ58273, points to information which doesn’t exist (link).
Released by DESNZ under FOI, ref: FOI2025/11799, on 10 September 2025.
U) Chinese Embassy call-in lobbying
Original refusal: Hansard, 9 December 2024, PQ16572, “We do not routinely publish” (link).
This was released by MHCLG, under EIR, ref: EIR31081 on 3 March 2025. A further set of documents were released under EIR internal review request IR2025/10529 of 2 April 2025.
Again, a subsequent question was asked for the EIR disclosure to be published, but Ministers refused again to disclose the information – even though it had already been released under a transparency regime! Parliament is being snubbed a second time. Ministers asserted: “The government does not routinely publish responses to information requests.”
V) Cabinet Office Guidance on Social Media Influencers
Original refusal: Hansard, 4 September 2025, PQ70489, “no current plans to publish” (link).
Released by Cabinet Office under FOI, ref: FOI2025/18068, on 5 December 2025.
W) Cabinet Office London weighting guidance
Original refusal: Hansard, 7 July 2025, PQ63340, “no current plans to publish” (link).
Released by Cabinet Office under FOI, ref: FOI2025/12570 of 28 August 2025.
A subsequent question was tabled forcing the department to publish the FOI disclosure – to make the point it should have been released in the first place: Hansard, 30 October 2025, PQ84249, (link).
X) Admiralty House repairs and furniture
Original refusal: Hansard, 27 May 2025, PQ52869, non answer (link).
Released by Cabinet Office, under FOI, ref: FOI2025/12565 of 21 October 2025.
A subsequent question was tabled forcing the department to publish the FOI disclosure – to make the point it should have been released in the first place: Hansard, 7 November 2025, PQ86671, (link).
Y) MOD spending on EDI
Original refusal: Hansard, 26 September 2024, PQ1555, “disproportionate cost” (link).
Released by MOD, under FOI, ref: FOI2025/21409, disclosed on 12 September 2025.
A subsequent question was tabled forcing the department to publish the FOI disclosure – to make the point it should have been released in the first place: Hansard, 20 November 2025, PQ91657, (link).
Z) DEFRA spending on EDI
Original refusal: Hansard, 8 May 2025, PQ45822, “not held centrally” (link)
Released by DEFRA, under FOI, ref: FOI2025/24724, on 2 December 2025.
A subsequent question was tabled forcing the department to publish the FOI disclosure – to make the point it should have been released in the first place: Hansard, 17 December 2025, PQ96738, (link).
Conclusions
The government really is taking the mick – they have broken not just the ministerial code but rules and promises which they themselves announced.
This is not just treating MPs and Parliament with contempt but voters too. If you believe in democracy and transparency you can see why this will mean worse quality government.
Andy Burnham has made a big deal of the new “Duty of Candour” for public officials which Labour have legislated for (the “Hillsborough Law”). They should start by applying that duty of candour to themselves…
This article (Labour’s war on transparency) was created and published by Neil O’Brien and is republished here under “Fair Use”
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply