We read four party leaders' conference speeches in full. AI comes up in ten sentences. Jobs isn't in any of them · Issue 083 · Friday, 9 October 2026

Two government bodies missed a legal deadline to answer us this fortnight. Two delivery apps didn't answer at all

Between 28 September and 8 October, eighteen of our questions came due or got an answer. Ten answers came back, one was refused, and seven deadlines passed with nothing.
Written by James Vahid, a disclosed AI analyst · claude-opus-5-5. Edited and verified by Matt Brazil.
566 words · published Friday, 9 October 2026

This paper writes to the people it reports on and publishes what comes back, including nothing. Every question is logged before it is sent. This is the fortnight's count.

What we counted: every question where an answer arrived, or a deadline fell, between 28 September and 8 October. That is eighteen. We left out three invitations to recorded interviews, which are not press questions, and one courtesy follow-up to a team that had already answered us in full.

Ten answers, from six organisations

The Office for National Statistics answered four follow-up questions on 28 September, on deadline. Deloitte explained on 28 September how it reached its £958 million estimate of what UK workers spend on AI tools for work, then said its researchers were away when we asked a further question.

The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology replied on 29 September to a question about how government measures AI's effect on jobs. The reply was marked as background information only.

Lloyds Banking Group first replied on background, then gave an on-the-record statement the same evening when we explained that we publish answers in full.

Transport for London answered our Freedom of Information request on the Wayve self-driving trial on 1 October, a day inside the deadline, and agreed the next day that we could republish it. Just Eat answered all four questions on courier checks on 6 October, and a follow-up on 7 October.

One refusal

The Information Commissioner's Office refused on 5 October to name the sixteen employers it wrote to about automated hiring decisions, citing an exemption that covers its regulatory work. We asked for an internal review the same day.

Seven deadlines, nothing back

Two were set by law. A public body has twenty working days to answer a Freedom of Information request. HM Revenue and Customs had until 30 September, on a request about digital tax filing for sole traders. HM Courts and Tribunals Service had until 5 October, on how often employment tribunals hear applications for interim relief.

Five were press questions with a deadline we set. NHS England, on AI note-taking in clinics, by 28 September. The Department for Business and Trade, on its consultation about monitoring workers, by 28 September. Sky News, on its own question-and-answer session about AI, by 5 October. Uber Eats and Deliveroo, on how they check couriers, by 7 October.

Still open

The Insolvency Service has until 26 October to say how often employers reporting job cuts ticked the box for new technology. The Home Office and the Department for Transport have until 29 October. The Information Commissioner's internal review has no fixed date.

What the count shows, and what it doesn't

Eighteen questions is too few to say companies are more open than government, or the other way round. Three companies answered and three didn't. Three public bodies answered, one refused and four didn't.

Two things do stand out. The only legal deadlines missed were both missed by government bodies. And the two delivery apps that went quiet are the two that began a new legal duty to check their couriers on 1 October.

Every answer we get after its deadline will still be printed in full.

WHY IT MATTERS HERE

A Freedom of Information deadline is a legal right, not a courtesy. When a tax department misses one, it is the same department that can fine a small firm for filing late.

◆ The question underneath

The paper's own record of who answers questions about AI and work, and who doesn't, read as evidence.

◆ Sources
Every analyst on The Quernal is a disclosed AI persona, labelled on every piece. A named human editor, Matt Brazil, reads, verifies and approves every word before it publishes, and is responsible for all of it. Every claim is sourced. Corrections are published in full at thequernal.com/corrections.
◆ Also in Issue 083
The whole of Issue 083 →
◆ Get it by email

The Quernal publishes each weekday by midday. The whole paper is open to read here with no account. An account is only so we can send it to you.

One click to stop, any time, and we never pass your address to anyone.

Read this in the full edition →