Exclusive: Department for Exiting the EU failed to respond to more than 60% of freedom of information requests

This article is more than 2 years old

This article is more than 2 years old

Theresa May’s key Brexit department has failed to respond to more than six out of 10 freedom of information requests over the past year, giving it the worst annual record for secrecy in Whitehall.

The Institute for Government (IFG) said the figures, included in an analysis shared exclusively with the Guardian, painted a “broader picture of government opacity” – particularly related to Britain’s departure from the EU.

Davis rebuked over Brexit impact papers but not held in contempt Read more

The figures come after David Davis had his knuckles rapped after appearing to boast about a series of reports assessing the impact of Brexit on different British sectors, which never existed. Despite MPs’ annoyance, the cabinet minister avoided a charge of contempt of parliament.

However, he could face further questions following the IFG research in which the Department for Exiting the European Union topped a list on the number of times information was fully withheld over the past year.

The Department for International Trade – also involved with Brexit planning – was worst for timeliness. It only responded within the required 20 working days (or longer with a permitted extension) 63.5% of the time – well below a target of 85%. Falling below the expected level repeatedly can result in special monitoring from the Information Commissioner’s Office.

“DExEU’s record on freedom of information is worse than most other government departments – in two of the five quarters of its existence, it’s withheld more information than any other department,” said Gavin Freeguard, the IFG’s head of data and transparency.

“This poor performance is part of a much broader picture of government opacity when it comes to Brexit. We have yet to see any serious impact assessments from departments, and are still waiting for white papers that were due to be published before the summer.”

Over the past year Freeguard found that the Brexit department, led by Davis, granted just 18% of FoI cases in full – the lowest of any department. That was followed by the Foreign Office and Department for Trade which both provided all the requested data in 24% of cases.



Meanwhile, it fully withheld information in 62% of cases, the highest proportion, followed by those of the Cabinet Office and HMRC.

The statistics were marginally better when limited to the past quarter. That placed the Brexit department in third place on 55%, behind HMRC and the Cabinet Office.

Freeguard found that Brexit officials used FoI exemptions more regularly than other colleagues across the government, citing international relations, the economy and formulation of government policy as reasons to keep information private.

A separate request for information from the department – by Ben Worthy – found that it often also used the claim that requests had been “vexatious”.

Officials insisted there were good reasons for the lack of data being provided.



A DExEU spokesperson said: “The department’s purpose is to negotiate our successful exit from the European Union, and therefore a significant amount of our work is sensitive. We always strive to balance our commitment to transparency with the need to protect sensitive information that could affect our negotiating position.”

However, the IFG’s director, Bronwen Maddox, questioned the behaviour of Davis’s department.

Speaking about the impact assessments, she claimed the government had shown disregard for the principle of making decisions based on evidence.

She said: “David Davis said to the Commons committee on exiting the EU that the government had not undertaken formal impact assessments of Brexit. This not only appeared to contradict previous ministerial assertions but also showed a disregard for the principle of making decisions based on thorough evidence and analysis.

“This is no way to approach such a profound change in the UK’s relationship with close trading partners and allies.”