Annex B – FOI18-2124– Public Interest Test
Please could you supply a copy of any engineers' reports,
FOI18-2124
conclusions and/or recommendations in specific relation to the
plans by HS2 to construct a new electrical substation and
associated plant and power lines at the former Rugeley Power
Station, Rugeley, Staffordshire, WS15 1NZ.
Date:
13 November 2018
EIR Regulation: Regulation 12(5)(d) relates to confidentiality of proceedings
provided by law
Factors supporting disclosure
Factors supporting non-disclosure
The documents contain advice from
internal and external advisers which was
supplied in confidence by both parties,
who have a reasonable expectation that
the information would not be made
public. This is a fundamental concept of
Compliance with FOIA and EIR
English law. The release of these
public authority obligations,
documents would undermine future
including the obligation to be
discussions with these contractors and
transparent, to assist with their
advisers.
requests for information and to
release relevant information to
The information withheld relates to
the public in a timely manner.
information obtained from a HS2
contractor for the purposes of a formal
General public interest in the
parliamentary process. As such
disclosure of information to
disclosure of this information before
ensure that public bodies are
proceedings are undertaken would
being held to account regarding
adversely affect these proceedings. The
decisions made and use of funds.
confidentiality of parliamentary
proceedings is protected by law.
Disclosure of information on
recommendations regarding decision-
making will undermine the process of
collective policy formulation. There is a
strong public interest in maintaining an
environment of confidentiality to
encourage the free and frank provision of
advice, options available and the
exchange of views for a deliberative
process.
There is a strong public interest in
ensuring that decision-makers receive full
and frank advice from third parties. For
practicality, clarity and quality, and the
provision of a proper record, such advice
will normally be in writing. If advisers
think that their advice will be disclosed,
written submissions run the risk of
becoming bland and empty documents,
which will undermine the decision-
making process and will lead, inevitably,
to a loss of rigour and precision.
Conclusion:
The decision to withhold the information is upheld in light of the arguments for
withholding outweighing those in favour of disclosing it. In this case, there are strong
public interest considerations in not providing the requested data.