Legal claim launched against government over failure to share environmental reports

The claim argues that the government wrongly interprets its duty under regulation 4 of the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR), which requires proactive dissemination of environmental information. 

The claim is endorsed by the Campaign for Freedom of Information, which says it would increase pressure on the government to publish important environmental reports. 

Mr Webster is bringing the case following his direct experience of having to spend two years fighting to see reports which should have been published proactively. 

In August 2023, Mr Webster requested that the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) share reports on the future availability and cost of hydrogen for heating homes. This came as part of his investigation into the viability of using hydrogen to heat homes - a method which many independent scientists believe is a false solution being promoted by the gas industry. 

These requests were made under the EIR, which provide a right of access for the public to environmental information held by public bodies in the UK. 

While the DESNZ confirmed that it held four reports, it refused to release them, arguing that the reports were part of a decision-making process that was not yet complete. Mr Webster and the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) took the case to the Information Tribunal, but shortly before a hearing on the matter the DESNZ released three of the reports. The DESNZ is appealing against a First Tier Tribunal ruling ordering it to release the fourth report. 

Mr Webster argues that the reports contain relevant and important information about environmental policy, and should have been published proactively under regulation 4 of the EIR but instead were kept hidden for more than three years.

Regulation 4 requires government bodies to share information which is relevant and important in the framing of major environmental policy proposals, and to “progressively make [environmental] information available to the public”. Mr Webster argues this relates to the information he requested. 

He says the information, which concerns the future of how people’s homes are heated, should have been published proactively and it should not have been necessary for him to have to request it and then chase the DESNZ for two years and resort to legal action. 

In December 2025, Mr Webster raised concerns with DESNZ that it was not complying with its duty under regulation 4 of the EIR and sought further information as to how the duty was being applied. The response showed that the DESNZ had not referred to or discussed the duty at all over a two-year period, and interpreted the duty as only applying to policies and proposals that are already in the public domain as opposed to those still being developed. 

In the claim now filed in March 2026, Mr Webster argues that the DESNZ’s interpretation of the regulation 4 duty to share information is too narrow, and that more steps need to be taken to publish environmental information relating to major policy proposals proactively.  

Mr Webster also raises concerns that this approach is mirrored across other government departments, having experienced similar issues when requesting information from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). 

In his claim, Mr Webster calls on the High Court to declare that the DESNZ is mistaken on the scope of regulation 4 of the EIR and, as a result, is unlawfully failing to carry out its duty to proactively share information. 

Ben Webster said: 

“This legal challenge will force the government to adopt an active publication policy on vital environmental issues. Armed with that information, the public could then put more pressure on ministers to act. 

“If government departments published more information proactively, they would need to spend less time, and money, responding to freedom of information requests.” 

Maurice Frankel, director of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, said: 

“This important legal challenge would increase pressure for government and public bodies to publish, not stifle, inconvenient environmental reports. 

“It would make it harder for them to conceal material which suggests that policies are not working, adding to the pressure for significant findings to be published and acted on.” 

Mr Webster is represented by Leigh Day environment team solicitors Julia Eriksen and Lily Hartley-Matthews. Julia Eriksen said: 

“As a campaigner and journalist, our client, Mr Webster, is acutely aware of the importance of timely access to environmental information. He has spent two years chasing reports from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero regarding major environmental policy, the use of hydrogen to heat homes - a topic of undoubted relevance and importance. Upon receiving and reviewing the reports, Mr Webster felt it was apparent that the information should have been published proactively under duties laid out in the Environmental Information Regulations. He hopes that the High Court will agree with his assessment that the DESNZ’s interpretation of these requirements to share environmental information is too narrow.” 

Mr Webster is crowdfunding his legal campaign.