The battle for transparency in government trade talks continues as the Supreme Court has granted the government additional power to keep information from the public. Just recently, the government refused to provide basic information regarding their discussions with former US President Donald Trump. This lack of transparency has raised concerns that economic policy may be influenced by big businesses rather than the interests of the public.
In response to this alarming trend, calls have been made for Members of Parliament to take action and demand the right for themselves and the public to shape trade deals. It is essential to protect the rights and interests of the citizens, especially when it comes to crucial trade negotiations that can have far-reaching implications.
Although the Supreme Court decision was not unanimous, with two of the five justices disagreeing, Lord Richards and Sir Declan Morgan expressed concerns about the implications of allowing the government to withhold information through aggregation. They warned that this could set a dangerous precedent and lead to regular obstruction of disclosure by public authorities.
The legal battle over a Freedom of Information request made to the Department of International Trade has already cost an estimated £300,000 in legal fees. The request aimed to reveal basic details about trade discussions, such as meeting dates, attendee names, and agenda items. However, the government has been reluctant to share this information, opting for a strategy of secrecy.
The lack of transparency surrounding these trade talks is not a new issue. The first secret meeting of the US-UK Trade and Investment Working Group took place eight years ago, and details are still being withheld. The public is only informed of agreements after they have been made, allowing politicians to shape the narrative in their favor.
Campaigners have raised concerns that important environmental and consumer protections could be compromised in exchange for headline-grabbing trade deals. Leaked documents from the US talks suggested potential threats to the NHS and environmental standards, further fueling public skepticism about the government’s trade policies.
The extreme secrecy surrounding these negotiations has been highlighted in multiple FOIA hearings, where civil servants were instructed to communicate in code to avoid transparency laws. Despite calls for greater democratic scrutiny and accountability in trade policies, the government has resisted providing basic information to Parliament.
The government’s legal argument in the Supreme Court case hinges on redefining the term “exemption” to justify withholding information. This semantic debate underscores the lengths to which the government is willing to go to keep trade talks shrouded in secrecy.
As the battle for transparency in government trade talks continues, it is crucial for MPs and the public to demand accountability and ensure that trade deals are in the best interests of the country as a whole. Only through openness and democratic oversight can the public trust that their rights and interests are being protected in these crucial negotiations. The recent Supreme Court case regarding the disclosure of information related to the US-UK Trade and Investment Working Group has shed light on the complexities of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the challenges of balancing transparency with the public interest.
The case began when Brendan Montague made a request to the Department of International Trade for information related to the US-UK Trade and Investment Working Group. The department initially disclosed some information but withheld certain details, citing specific exemptions to disclosure under the FOIA. This decision was challenged, leading to a legal battle that ultimately reached the Supreme Court.
One of the key arguments made by the government’s legal team was the concept of “siloing,” which refers to the separate categorization of exemptions under the FOIA. The government argued that if requesters are allowed to aggregate the public interest in favor of disclosure, then the government should also be able to aggregate arguments against disclosure based on specific exemptions.
Sir James Eadie KC, representing the government, emphasized the need to balance competing public interests and defended the tribunal’s decision to aggregate harms from disclosure in order to rule against releasing the information. On the other hand, Tomothy Pitt-Payne KC, representing the Information Commissioner, argued against the aggregation of harms, warning that it could undermine the purpose of the FOIA and allow public authorities to stack exemptions to prevent disclosure.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case will have significant implications for future transparency and accountability in government decision-making. The outcome will determine whether public authorities can use the aggregation of harms as a justification for withholding information, or if the public interest in transparency should prevail.
In the midst of these legal proceedings, trade negotiations between Britain and its partners continue to be a point of concern. The recent free trade deal with India, which eliminates tariffs on a wide range of goods, has raised questions about the potential impact on sectors like pharmaceuticals. Similarly, the pending trade deal with the US has sparked debate over issues such as environmental and consumer protections, with concerns about potential concessions being made to accommodate American demands.
As the legal battle over the disclosure of information from the US-UK Trade and Investment Working Group unfolds, the public awaits the Supreme Court’s decision on how to navigate the delicate balance between transparency and the public interest in government affairs. The outcome of this case will shape the future of access to information under the FOIA and the level of scrutiny applied to international trade negotiations. The Department for International Trade (DIT) has come under scrutiny for withholding information requested under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The refusal to provide the information was based on exemptions outlined in sections 27 and 35(1)(a) of the FOIA, which pertain to interactional relationships and formulation of government policy, respectively.
On 29th March 2019, the Information Commissioner upheld the decision to withhold the information requested by the DIT. However, the heavily redacted copies of the trade documents were condemned by Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn during the first general election debate on 19th November 2019. Original, unredacted documents were leaked, revealing details of trade talks between the US and the UK, including concerns about the NHS potentially being opened up to private US firms.
The case was brought before the First-tier Tribunal on 12th December 2019. The tribunal partially upheld the appeal made by Brendan Montague, ordering limited further information to be disclosed. The judges criticized the DIT for their failure to provide detailed answers and justification for non-disclosure.
In a subsequent ruling on 13th April 2022, the Upper Tribunal found that the First-tier Tribunal had erred in law by permitting the aggregation of different public interests against disclosure. This decision was overturned on 22nd November 2023 by the Court of Appeal, allowing aggregation in this context.
On 7th February 2023, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak dissolved the DIT and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), delegating their responsibilities to the newly formed Department for Business and Trade (DBT). The case made its way to the Supreme Court, with a hearing taking place on 28th January 2025.
Finally, on 23rd July 2025, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment, dismissing the appeal from the Information Commissioner. This decision effectively upholds the DIT’s choice not to release the documents from the trade talks that were initially withheld.
Brendan Montague, editor of The Ecologist, originally filed the FOIA request for the trade talks information. His persistence in seeking transparency from the government led to a series of legal battles that ultimately shaped the outcome of the case.
