Tribunal orders disclosure of information on meetings between minister and private companies over net zero policies in Wales
An Information Tribunal has told the Government it must disclose information about meetings with private companies over net zero policies in Wales.
- Details
The First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) (Information Rights) made the decision in a case brought by journalist Lucas Amin.
He sought disclosure of minutes and briefing notes of meetings between David TC Davies - Welsh Secretary under the Conservative Government - and companies including Toyota, Aston Martin, Shell, and Tata Steel concerning the Zero Emissions Vehicle Mandate e-fuels, decarbonation and carbon capture and storage.
These mainly concerned policy in Wales and the tribunal gave the Secretary of State for Wales 35 working days to provide the information or face contempt proceedings.
Amin originally requested the information under the Environmental Information Regulations but the Government rejected this as being subject to the duty of confidence, and not in the public interest as disclosure would damage trust and information-sharing between the government and private companies.
The Information Commissioner upheld the government’s refusal.
Amin appealed to the tribunal on the grounds that the information was not subject to the duty of confidence, and the public interest favoured disclosure.
Alex Goodman KC and Alex Shattock, both of Landmark Chambers, acted pro bono for Mr Amin.
Judge Alexandra Marks found that the Commissioner had erred in finding that the information was confidential, and noted that none of the companies had been consulted as to whether their economic interests would be harmed by disclosure, while they knew it might be disclosable.
The judge found public interest favoured disclosure because “…private entities take a calculated risk when engaging with ministers and government departments - whom they know are subject to particularly onerous disclosure obligations under EIR - that information they share will be publicly disclosed.
“We consider it plausible, as [Mr Amin][ argues, that this is a price that commercial entities are prepared to pay for privileged access to ministers and the opportunity to influence public policy which impacts upon their economic interests.”
Dismissing the arguments about confidentiality, Judge Marks said: “Overall, the information from third parties was imparted to a government minister subject to EIR/FOIA duties for commercial influence or advantage and without any representations about confidentiality:
“Indeed, with regard to the zero emission vehicles mandate, information was shared in the explicit knowledge that it might be shared.”
She said briefing material from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero was shared under an explicit expectation of confidence, but “neither the Wales Office nor the commissioner has explained how information supplied to the Secretary of State by another department has the requisite elements to engage EIR 12(5)(e) of being commercial or industrial information, or subject to the common law duty of confidence, or protecting a legitimate economic interest”.
There was no evidence that third parties' legitimate economic interests in this case would be harmed by disclosure and the information sought “was clearly not subject to any express obligation of confidence nor any implied common law duty of confidence”.
Rejecting the idea that disclosure was contrary to the public interest, Judge Marks said: “Overall, the panel is satisfied that the public interest maintaining the exception in EIR 12(5)(e) is outweighed by the greater public interest in the public being able to see for themselves what was raised with a government minister behind closed doors by large private enterprises with significant commercial interests at stake, potentially influencing government policy in an area of such crucial importance as measures intended to address climate change.”
Mark Smulian
Jobs
Police Misconduct & Vetting Solicitor
Poll
Events
Directory
