ICO ‘less effective as a regulator’ due to toxic culture

Senior leadership aware of Edwards’ behaviour

However, sources said that the problems were not limited to Edwards alone, and extended to the wider leadership team.

According to the staff member, “A lot of the executive team just go, ‘Yes, sir, no, sir, three bags full, sir,’ and they don’t really know why we’re doing anything. They can’t explain to the rest of the organisation why certain decisions have been taken. So, no one knows what the hell they’re bleeding doing or why they’re doing it.”

Another anonymous source, who is well placed to comment, said: “There’s also a sincerely held belief that complaints about John’s behaviour were not taken forward as they should have been.”

The source added that had the senior leadership dealt with complaints when they first started arising, they could have nipped Edwards’ behaviour in the bud.

The lack of trust at the ICO was compounded by the senior leadership’s silence around Edwards’ departure in February. He requested Arnold to withhold the information from staff, in an internal memo revealed by The Times. Edwards wrote: “I do not believe that it is necessary to make any wider announcement to staff, or to make any external announcements or disclosures.”

The staff member said if ICO employees were given an indication of the reason behind his departure, it could have emboldened more people to report their own experiences.

Computer Weekly contacted the ICO about every claim made regarding the role of the wider senior leadership team, as well as its awareness of Edwards’ conduct, but received no direct response to many of the points raised. Its full response is included below.

Lack of trust at the ICO

According to those Computer Weekly spoke with, the dysfunctional culture at the ICO existed prior to Edwards. “There weren’t issues like this [misconduct] with Liz [Edwards’ predecessor, Elizabeth Denham], but there were a lot of things wrong, structurally and organisationally, at the top of the office that stemmed from the culture,” said the staff member.

After Edward’s resignation, the ICO published a statement promising to offer a “safe and supportive environment” for its staff. 

In response, the staff member said: “A significant proportion of staff would say that’s not true.”

The lack of trust and safety at the organisation has meant staff feel unable to disagree with senior decisions. 

“We can’t say we don’t want to do it because we disagree with it,” they said. “We’ll just get a bollocking if we do that.” 

They added that “there’s not an effective two-way feedback mechanism”, leading to “poor decision-making at the top, and disaffection and poor implementation further down … That disaffection or implementation can relate to good ideas, as well as bad ones, because it just bleeds through like a virus.”

The poor communication has resulted in staff having “little or no confidence” in the ICO’s senior leadership, said a source. “It’s pretty clear that they’re at a very low ebb and extremely disillusioned with the ‘leadership’ of the ICO at present,” said the staff member.

“For some, it’s the culmination of years of poor management and an ivory tower executive team led on the corporate side by Paul Arnold. There is anger that they were kept in the dark and a general feeling that the staff are patronised by them … ICO staff are a professional group of intelligent people. The executive team needs to treat them as such.”

The source added: “I think more pressure needs to be put on DSIT or the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee to examine exactly how the situation was allowed to develop for so long, and why the executive team ignored it.”

PCS called for urgent action to address concerns beyond Edwards’ resignation on 2 July. “The union remains concerned that efforts to improve the situation must focus on addressing the underlying causes of these problems rather than simply responding to their effects,” it said.

“PCS’s concerns are reinforced by findings from ICO People Surveys, which have highlighted unacceptable levels of bullying, harassment and discrimination, alongside evidence that many staff do not feel psychologically safe at work.”

Further independent review to take place

Dunne, who has acted as the ICO staff’s union representative since last year, said previous complaints against Edwards were made in the years prior to his leave. The complaints were put forward to the ICO and DSIT, who “failed to do anything significant about it” as far as PCS understands, said Dunne.

Responding on behalf of DSIT to a Parliamentary question from Esther McVey on 23 June, Labour minister Ian Murray said MPs were not informed of any complaints prior to 16 February, 10 days prior to Edwards stepping back from the ICO.

In a letter to DSIT on 1 July 2026, Dunne wrote: “The ICO received a serious complaint about Mr Edwards’ behaviour in 2024, which was investigated and partly upheld but with no clear action taken against Mr Edwards, apart from a recommendation of training. 

“I wrote to DSIT Employee Relations on 12 June 2025, requesting that DSIT review the case and take over responsibility for decision making, given the lack of anyone in the ICO holding the power to impose misconduct sanctions. We also highlighted that there may be other staff who had been subjected to unacceptable treatment by the commissioner.

“Unfortunately, I received a short response simply referring the case back to the ICO.

“We had already expressed to them they did not have the authority or competence to take appropriate action,” said Dunne. “If DSIT claim that they had no knowledge of the concerns around the commissioner’s behaviour before February 2026, this claim is factually incorrect.”

UK technology minister Liz Kendall has since announced on 8 July that she is launching an “independent review into the culture, accountability and governance of the ICO”.

Additionally, DSIT will be appointing a new board of non-executive directors and a new chair for the information commission, “the majority of whom will be women”, said Kendall.

She also confirmed the department will be launching the recruitment exercise for the chair of the new Information Commission next week, a role which would have otherwise been taken up by Edwards.

Responding to Kendall’s intervention, Dunne said that while the comments and commitment to investigate are welcome, PCS is yet to receive a response from DSIT to its 1 June letter requesting an urgent meeting with the union.

“We will be following this up and reiterating our request to meet as a matter of urgency,” he said. “PCS is clear that any review must be accountable to the Secretary of State and Parliament, genuinely independent, and have the authority to hold to account any members of senior leadership who failed in their responsibilities to ICO staff.

“Crucially, the review must also ensure that the voices of former ICO staff are heard, particularly those who felt they had no option but to leave because of the toxic workplace culture that developed under the former commissioner’s leadership.”

ICO and DSIT responses

Computer Weekly contacted DSIT about the PCS’s concerns and why it had not previously acted when the union raised these issues in mid-2025.

“The ICO is operationally independent and is expected to follow its own policies and procedures for HR matters, escalating to the department where necessary,” said a spokesperson.

“The matters referenced in the PCS letter were handled through ICO processes. When new and different allegations were raised in 2026, an independent investigation was commissioned.”

Responding to a request for comment from Computer Weekly, the ICO confirmed that it will be involved in the “independent review” of its workplace culture and practices.

“As the independent investigation found, John Edwards’ conduct was unacceptable and fell well short of the standards we expect and of the safe, respectful working environment our staff deserve,” said a spokesperson. “People at every level of the ICO felt the impact of this behaviour.

“The role of Information Commissioner is extraordinary in that it is a Crown appointee and accountable to Parliament,” they added. “Despite the limitations of this governance structure, concerns were raised, action taken when necessary, and outcomes shared with DSIT when appropriate. Some of these concerns formed the basis for the recent workplace investigation.

“We are committed to learning from these findings. We’re commissioning an independent review jointly with DSIT and will act on its recommendations to ensure lessons are learned, no matter how challenging. Enhancing our workplace support is an ever-present commitment and we’re determined to work with our staff to ensure something like this never happens again at the ICO.”