Skip Navigation

United Kingdom

  • Member Since 2011
  • Action Plan 6

ON THE PAGE

Current Action Plan

2023-2025

Action Plan 6

  • Number of Commitments: 4
  • Policy Area Focus: Not specified

The UK has delivered their 2023-2025 action plan.

arlington-research-nFLmPAf9dVc-unsplash
Scotland, United Kingdom · ...

Algorithms and Human Rights: Understanding Their Impacts

Human rights algorithmic impact assessments have emerged as an accountability tool to identify potential harms, mitigate unintended impacts, and inform policy decisions on the use of algorithms across key policy areas including health, and education. 

Contact

Point of Contact

Matthew Donnelly Central Digital & Data Office, Cabinet Office matthew.donnelly@digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk

Commitments

Resources

  1. United Kingdom Action Plan 2023-2025 (December)

    2023, Action Plan, Web page

  2. United Kingdom – Response Letter from OGP CEO to Minister Burghart – July 2023

    2023, Web page

  3. United Kingdom – Letter from Minister Burghart – June 2023

    2023, Letter, Web page

  4. Inception Report – Action plan – Glasgow, United Kingdom, 2021 – 2023

    2023, Inception Report, Web page

  5. United Kingdom Co-Creation Brief 2023

    2023, IRM Report, Web page

  6. United Kingdom – Procedural Review Resolution by C&S Subcommittee (December 2022)

    2022, Web page

  7. Inception Report – Action plan – Northern Ireland, United Kingdom, 2021 – 2022

    2022, Inception Report, Web page

  8. United Kingdom – Update on Process [Response to Contrary to Process Letter] – November 2022

    2022, Letter, Web page

  9. United Kingdom – Response to Contrary to Process Letter (September 2022)

    2022, Letter, Web page

  10. United Kingdom – Contrary to Process Letter (August 2022)

    2022, Letter, Web page

  11. United Kingdom Action Plan Review 2021-2023

    2022, IRM Report, Web page

  12. United Kingdom Action Plan Review 2021-2023 – For Public Comment

    2022, Report Comments, Web page

  13. United Kingdom Transitional Results Report 2019-2021

    2022, IRM Report, Web page

  14. United Kingdom Transitional Results Report 2019-2021 – For Public Comment

    2022, Report Comments, Web page

  15. United Kingdom Action Plan 2021-2023

    2021, Action Plan, Web page

  16. Action plan – Scotland, United Kingdom, 2021 – 2025

    2021, Action Plan, Web page

  17. Action plan – Glasgow, United Kingdom, 2021 – 2023

    2021, Action Plan, Web page

  18. Action plan – Northern Ireland, United Kingdom, 2021 – 2022

    2021, Action Plan, Web page

  19. Nordic+ Fact Sheet (August 2021)

    2021, Research Product, Web page

  20. Northern Ireland – Letter of Support

    2021, Letter, Web page

  21. Glasgow – Letter of Support

    2021, Letter, Web page

  22. United Kingdom – Response to Under Review Letter (March 2021)

    2021, Letter, Web page

  23. United Kingdom – Under Review Letter – February 2021

    2021, Letter, Web page

  24. United Kingdom Design Report 2019-2021

    2021, IRM Report, Web page

  25. United Kingdom Design Report 2019-2021 – For Public Comment

    2021, Report Comments, Web page

  26. Scotland Design Report 2018-2020

    2019, IRM Report, Web page

  27. Scotland Design Report 2018-2020 – For Public Comment

    2019, Report Comments, Web page

  28. United Kingdom Action Plan 2019-2021

    2019, Action Plan, Web page

  29. United Kingdom End-of-Term Report 2016-2018

    2019, IRM Report, Web page

  30. UK Government response to Notification of Late Action Plan (March 2019)

    2019, Letter, Web page

  31. United Kingdom End-of-Term Report 2016-2018 – For Public Comment

    2019, Report Comments, Web page

  32. United Kingdom – Notification of Late Action Plan (Cohort Shift) – January 2019

    2019, Letter, Web page

  33. Scotland IRM Report 2017

    2019, IRM Report, Web page

  34. Scotland Action Plan 2018-2020

    2018, Action Plan, Web page

  35. Early Results of Open Government Partnership Initiatives (2018)

    2018, Research Product, Web page

  36. Scotland IRM Report 2017 – For Public Comment

    2018, Report Comments, Web page

  37. United Kingdom Mid-Term Report 2016-2018

    2018, IRM Report, Web page

  38. United Kingdom Mid-Term Report 2016-2018 – For Public Comment

    2018, Report Comments, Web page

  39. United Kingdom Mid-Term Self-Assessment 2016-2018

    2018, Self Assessment, Web page

  40. Scotland Preliminary Review 2017 – For Public Comments

    2017, Report Comments, Web page

  41. What’s in a Name? A comparison of ‘open government’ definitions across seven OGP members

    2017, Research Product, Web page

  42. UK Progress Report 2014-2015 – Public Comments Section

    2017, IRM Report, Web page

  43. United Kingdom End-of-Term Report 2013-2015

    2017, IRM Report, Web page

  44. United Kingdom – Additional progress report on the first six months 2016-18

    2016, Self Assessment, Web page

  45. Scotland, United Kingdom Action Plan

    2016, Action Plan, Web page

  46. United Kingdom End-of-Term Self-Assessment Report 2013-2015

    2016, Self Assessment, Web page

  47. United Kingdom – Third National Action Plan 2016-18

    2016, Action Plan, Web page

  48. SCVO Endorsement Letter

    2016, Letter, Web page

  49. UK Government Public Comments Received on IRM Progress Report 2013-15

    2016, IRM Report, Web page

  50. UK Progress Report 2013-15 Google Doc Public Comments Received

    2016, IRM Report, Web page

  51. United Kingdom Progress Report 2013-2015

    2016, IRM Report, Web page

  52. Open Government Awards Booklet

    2015, Web page

  53. United Kingdom Mid-term Self-Assessment Report 2013-2015

    2015, Self Assessment, Web page

  54. United Kingdom SC Application Letter

    2014, Letter, Web page

  55. United Kingdom Progress Report 2011–2013

    2014, IRM Report, Web page

  56. United Kingdom – Second National Action Plan 2013-2015

    2013, Action Plan, Web page

  57. United Kingdom Self-Assessment Report 2011-2013

    2013, Self Assessment, Web page

  58. United Kingdom – First National Action Plan 2011-2013

    2011, Action Plan, Web page

Current Data

The data below is updated periodically, most often after large numbers of new action plans and IRM reports.

Commitment Performance

The following variables answer the question “Did this commitment open government?“, and focus on how government practices have changed as a result of the commitment’s implementation.

Key

No IRM data

Pending IRM Review

Download
Major
Outstanding
Starred Commitments
Action Plan 1
Action Plan 2
11
0
4
Action Plan 3
4
0
2
Action Plan 4
0

Global

Most per action plan
4
7

Regional

Most per action plan
4
7

How to Get More Starred Commitments

Starred commitments in OGP are one of the ways the IRM designates promising reforms. The graph below shows where the major areas for improvement in action plan design and implementation should take place based on past action plans.

Key

Stars (Global average 7%)

Focus on implementation

Focus on design

Pending IRM review

No IRM data

Focus on design

Focus on objectives and impact (ambition/potential impact)

Focus on relevance to open government

Focus on verifiability

Download
Action Plan 1

Public Participation

This table shows: 1) the level of public influence during the development and implementation of OGP action plans, 2) whether consultations were open to any member of the public or only to those invited; and 3) whether a forum existed that met regularly.

Key

Participation was closed

Participation was open to any interested party

No IRM data

Forum

Pending IRM review

Definitions

Collaborate: Iterative dialogue and public helped set agenda

 

Involve: Government gave feedback on public inputs

 

Consult: Public gave input

 

Inform: Government provided public with information on plan

Download
Collaborate
Involve
Consult
Inform
No Consultation

Development

Action Plan 1
Action Plan 2
Action Plan 3
Action Plan 4
Collaborate
Involve
Consult
Inform
No Consultation

Implementation

Action Plan 1
Action Plan 2
Action Plan 3
Action Plan 4

OGP Global Report Data

The data below is drawn from the 2019 OGP Global Report. You can view and learn more about the report here.

Selected Dimensions of Open Government

This section captures how each OGP member can play a leadership role, based on IRM-based findings and third-party scores. This list does not cover all of open government and OGP members are not required to take any action.

Action implications

These are recommendations on the role that each OGP member might play in each policy area. The recommendations are derived from a combination of the IRM-based findings and third-party scores.

IRM-based findings

Reflect the performance of commitments in a particular policy area, as assessed by the IRM.

 

(NC) No Commitments
(CA) Commitment(s) in the policy area.
(IR) IRM-Reviewed: At least one IRM-assessed commitment.
(C) Was Complete: At least one commitment was substantially or fully completed.
(A) Was Ambitious: At least one commitment with moderate or transformative potential impact.
(ER) Showed Early Results: At least one commitment opened government in a “Major” or “Outstanding” way.

Third-party scores

Reflect “real-world” performance, i.e., performance outside of the OGP framework. Scores are comprised of various indicators collected by respected organizations.

Download

Anti-Corruption

Beneficial Ownership
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
3.00 Sources
Open Contracting
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
3.46 Sources

Civic Space

Freedom of Assembly
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
3.43 Sources
Freedom of Association
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
3.59 Sources
Defending Journalists and Activists
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
3.12 Sources

Open Policy Making

Participation in Lawmaking
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
3.28 Sources
Regulatory Governance
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
4.00 Sources

Access to Information

Right to Information
Action Implications
New Initiative
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
2.66 Sources
Open Data (Water / Sanitation)
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
0 Sources
Open Data (Health)
Action Implications
Implement for Results
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
1.20 Sources
Open Data (Education)
Action Implications
Consider Action
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
2.50 Sources

Fiscal Openness

Transparency
Action Implications
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
2.96 Sources
Participation
Action Implications
Implement for Results
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
2.16 Sources
Oversight
Action Implications
Implement for Results
IRM-Based Findings
NC
CA
IR
C
A
ER
3rd-Party Score (0-4)
2.68 Sources

Recent Posts

elena-mozhvilo-V2hZ1VNsZJE-unsplash
Northern Ireland, United Kingdom · United Kingdom · Ireland

Meaningful Citizen Engagement in Urban Planning

A key part of democracy at the local level is providing citizens with the opportunity to take action on the issues that are important to them. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the area of urban planning. When planning…

Tweets_AP_drafts
United Kingdom

New OGP IRM Report For UK Finds Minimum Standards Were Not Met

As a co-founder of OGP, the United Kingdom has been a global leader on open government and anti-corruption efforts, implementing four open government action plans to date. However, the Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM) has completed its review of the UK’s most recent action plan, finding that it has failed to meet minimum standards that are required when developing an OGP action plan. 

arlington-research-nFLmPAf9dVc-unsplash
Scotland, United Kingdom · Netherlands · United Kingdom · Finland · Canada

Algorithms and Human Rights: Understanding Their Impacts

Human rights algorithmic impact assessments have emerged as an accountability tool to identify potential harms, mitigate unintended impacts, and inform policy decisions on the use of algorithms across key policy areas including health, and education. 

Show More
Open Government Partnership