UPDATE: The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has just ruled that the criminal records of ministers can remain secret, citing privacy concerns over disclosing convictions. This significant decision, announced on November 24, 2025, raises urgent questions about transparency in government and the integrity of public officials.
According to the ICO, revealing the criminal histories of ministers would infringe upon their privacy rights, even as calls for accountability grow louder. The watchdog rejected requests from The Times for the Cabinet Office to disclose how many ministers have criminal convictions, asserting that the potential for a “jigsaw” effect could inadvertently identify individuals.
The ruling comes in the wake of former Labour Transport Secretary Louise Haigh resigning last year after it was revealed she had a historical fraud conviction. Haigh, who served as the MP for Sheffield Heeley, stepped down after admitting to falsely reporting a stolen phone, a conviction that has since raised alarm about other ministers’ undisclosed criminal records.
Officials have previously disclosed that ministers must report any relevant past convictions to Sir Laurie Magnus, the independent advisor on ministerial standards. However, it is ultimately Magnus’s discretion to decide what information is made public on the ministerial register of interests. This lack of transparency has sparked outrage among opposition leaders, particularly from the Liberal Democrats.
Lisa Smart, the Liberal Democrat Cabinet Office spokesperson, condemned the ICO’s ruling as “astonishing.” She stated, “Ministers hiding convictions wouldn’t be privacy but secrecy. Shutting out the public and preventing transparency has no place in our democracy.” Smart is advocating for a change in the ministerial code that would require the disclosure of any criminal record as a condition for holding office.
Critics argue that this lack of transparency undermines public trust. A judge previously commented that allowing the public to see changes linked to controversies or independent advisories would bolster confidence in the integrity of the political process.
The ICO’s decision has been met with mixed reactions, particularly among those advocating for greater transparency in government. With ongoing discussions about governmental integrity, this ruling could have broader implications for how future administrations handle ministerial accountability.
The public is urged to stay informed as the debate over ministerial transparency continues. What happens next could reshape the landscape of political accountability in the UK.
Stay tuned for further updates on this developing story as public pressure mounts for greater transparency in government.
