2nd September 2025
Transparency campaigner Alan M. Dransfield has written to Parliament raising concerns that the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is “marking its own homework” when handling Freedom of Information (FOI) requests.
In a letter to the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC), Dransfield warns of a “structural flaw” in the FOI system. The ICO is both the regulator responsible for enforcing the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and, at the same time, a public authority subject to it.
Dransfield argues this creates an “inherent conflict of interest.” When the public requests information about the ICO itself—such as its spending or decision-making—the ICO often refuses disclosure. Any complaints about those refusals are then investigated by the ICO itself.
“In effect, the ICO becomes judge and jury in its own case,” Dransfield said. “That undermines trust in both the regulator and the FOI framework as a whole.”
He outlined three key concerns:
- Lack of independent oversight – there is no external reviewer of ICO decisions short of costly Tribunal appeals.
- Erosion of public trust – the ICO cannot credibly promote openness elsewhere if it shields itself from scrutiny.
- Conflict with statutory mission – the ICO’s duty is to enforce transparency, not defend its own secrecy.
To address the problem, Dransfield has suggested reforms such as referring ICO-related complaints to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, amending the FOI Act to provide external review, or introducing a fast-track Tribunal process.
He has asked MPs on the PACAC Committee to examine the issue as part of their oversight of the FOI system.
“The ICO cannot credibly be both the regulator of transparency and the arbiter of its own secrecy. Parliamentary intervention is required to restore confidence,” Dransfield concluded.
