Information Commissioner Decision ~ Cabinet Office do not have to disclose whether any Ministers declared a criminal conviction to officials

The Rt Hon Louise Haigh is the Labour MP for Sheffield Heeley, and has been an MP continually since 7 May 2015. She was Secretary of State for Transport from 5 July 2024 until her resignation on 28 November 2024. 

Haigh's resignation came about after it emerged that, in 2013 before becoming an MP, she had made a false report to the Police. In the Magistrates' Court she pleaded guilty and received a conditional discharge - see BBC 29 November 2025.

On 5 December 2024, a "complainant" submitted a request to the Cabinet Office - "Please state whether any current ministers declared a criminal conviction to officials during their appointment process. If any, please state the number of current ministers [who] declared a criminal conviction to officials during their appointment process.”

The Cabinet Office

responded on 5 January 2025 and refused to confirm or deny whether it held any  information falling within the scope of the request. To justify this, the Office cited:

a) Freedom of Information Act 2000 section 40(5B) (personal data) - the Office explained that “we believe confirming or denying whether we hold the information would contravene principle A under article 5(1)(a) of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) which requires that personal data
should be processed lawfully, fairly, and transparently.” 

and

(b) section 41(2) (information provided in confidence). 

The complainant contacted the Cabinet Office on 15 January 2025 and challenged the application of both exemptions.

In a decision dated 12 November 2025, the Information Commissioner decided that the Cabinet Office is entitled to refuse to confirm or deny whether it holds any information on the basis of section 40(5B)(a)(i) of FOIA.

 

See - Information Commissioner's Office - Cabinet Office - Decision Notice 12 November 2025

Public Interest

Naturally, there is a view that the public ought to be able to know whether any Ministers have criminal convictions even though the obvious 'follow up' would be to try to find names. 

Paragraph 51 of the ICO Decision notes public interest arguments put forward by the complainant. Please read the paragraph in full.

Of particular interest is the view that for some highly sensitive jobs (e.g. solicitors, police officers, those working with children) convictions cannot be spent and may serve as a bar on employment depending on the severity. Though being a government minister would appear to be as highly a sensitive role as these, ministerial roles are not currently subject to the same regime.

There is also a wider issue, that all MPs are not required to publicly disclose previous criminal convictions before standing in elections. 

The Commissioner did not seek to dispute the validity and weight of such arguments in n relation to this request which sought information about the appointment of minsters. 

However, given the restrictions that the Data Protection Act places on criminal offence data such factors do not, and cannot, alter the Commissioner’s position that the Cabinet Office is absolved from complying with section 1(1)(a) of FOIA in response to this request by virtue of 40(5B)(a)(i) of FOIA. 

Appeal from a decision of the Commissioner lies to the First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights)

First-Tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) 

The Law of Freedom of Information 3rd edition