The UK Covid-19 Inquiry has come under criticism for not publishing evidence related to government surveillance of anti-lockdown campaigners during the pandemic. At the centre of the controversy is the Government’s counter-disinformation unit (CDU), a body established in 2019 to address domestic threats, which reportedly monitored individuals critical of lockdown measures and flagged social media content for removal.

According to evidence submitted to the inquiry under a statutory Rule 9 request, the CDU regularly recorded the lawful and truthful communication of individuals including academics, journalists, and human rights advocates. Silkie Carlo, director of the civil liberties group Big Brother Watch, compiled this evidence in a witness statement. However, despite the formal request, the inquiry’s latest report did not reference or publish this material. Carlo expressed concern that the inquiry had effectively “buried” her evidence, stating that while the Rule 9 request initially suggested transparency, the ultimate exclusion of the material created a misleading impression of accountability. She asserted that the evidence highlighted serious issues with how misinformation and disinformation were handled, which she felt were overlooked in the report.

The GDPR is reported to have worked closely with social media platforms to limit debate on lockdown policies, some of which—such as the impact of restrictions on schoolchildren—have since been acknowledged as significant. The inquiry itself previously received testimony indicating that during school closures, children spent minimal time on academic work and increased time on television and social media.

Despite these revelations, the Covid-19 Inquiry concluded that the government’s use of surveillance and monitoring in combating vaccine misinformation was lawful, necessary, and proportionate. It found no inherent unlawfulness or impropriety in the approach taken to counter disinformation online.

In response to questions about the unpublished evidence, the inquiry acknowledged an “administrative oversight” and indicated that it was working to release statements not referenced in the report “as soon as possible.” An inquiry spokesman emphasized the extensive scope of the investigation, which has collected more than 600,000 pieces of evidence since June 2022. The spokesman noted that only evidence deemed relevant by the inquiry chair is published alongside hearings and reports.

A Government spokesperson defended the role of the CDU, saying it monitored publicly accessible information without tracking individuals. The spokesperson added the unit was instrumental during the pandemic in identifying false information posing risks to public health, maintaining a balance between safety, security, and freedom of speech.