Both the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) and the Directive from which it derives (Directive 2003/4/EC) emphasise the importance of permitting the public access to information on ‘emissions’ – see further the fact that a number of the exceptions provided for in the EIR and the Directive are specifically disapplied in the case of emissions information (see r. 12(9) EIR and Art. 4(2) of the Directive). However, one question which is not always easy to answer in practice is what will constitute ‘an emission’ for the purposes of the legislation. In part, this difficulty arises because neither the EIR nor the Directive contains any definition of the word ‘emission’ (although the concept is examined in the Implementation Guide to the Aarhus Convention, which the Directive was itself designed to implement). The question of what will constitute an ‘emission’ for the purposes of the EIR and the Directive was considered for the first time by the Information Tribunal in the case of GM Freeze v IC & DEFRA (EA/2010/0112). In that case, the First Tier Tribunal held (obiter) that the word ‘emission’ did not include the deliberate sowing of genetically-modified seed. The Tribunal’s decision is also worth considering in view of the analysis it contains on the application of the personal data exception provided for in r. 13 EIR.
Author: Anya Proops KC
COMMERCIAL INFORMATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS – NEW TRIBUNAL DECISION
Last month I blogged on a recent Tribunal decision which considered whether, following Veolia v Nottinghamshire CC [2010] EWCA 1214 (“Veolia”), human rights considerations had a role to play in FOIA/EIR cases involving the potential disclosure of confidential commercial information – see my post on the decision in Staffordshire CC v IC & Sibelco here. This month the Tribunal has promulgated another decision on the issue: see Nottinghamshire CC v IC & Veolia & UK Coal Mining Ltd (EA/2010/0142). The Notts case was concerned with a request for disclosure of particular information contained in a waste management contract between the council and Veolia. The particular information in dispute before the Tribunal was information contained in a schedule to that contract. In essence, the schedule detailed the leasing arrangements under which the council had an option to lease certain land from UKCM. The intention was that, once the leasing option was exercised by the council, Veolia would take a sub-lease of the land and then would build and maintain an incinerator on the land for the purposes of discharging its waste management obligations under the contract.
Contrary to the position adopted by the Commissioner, the Tribunal took the view that, despite the fact that it formed part of an overarching waste management contract, the information in the schedule did not in itself amount to environmental information (i.e. as it was simply information relating to prospective commercial leasing arrangements); accordingly, disclosure of the disputed information fell to be considered under FOIA rather than EIR. The applicable FOIA exemption was the commercial interests exemption (s. 43).
The Tribunal went on in its decision to comment on the application of human rights principles to the appeal, those principles having been considered by the Court of Appeal in the Veolia case. In essence, the Tribunal appears to have held that: (a) following Veolia, valuable commercial information could constitute a ‘possession’ of UKCM under Article 1 of Protocol 1 ECHR; (b) that, if the disputed information amounted to a ‘possession’, then UKMC had a right to privacy in respect of that information under Article 8(1) ECHR and, accordingly (c) disclosure under FOIA of that information would only be lawful if it was justified for the purposes of Article 8(2) ECHR. However, having reached these conclusions, the Tribunal appears to have taken the view that in fact these human rights considerations did not add very much to the overall analysis under FOIA, particularly as the requirements of the Article 8(2) justification test were already effectively reflected in the public interest balancing exercise which was built into s. 2 FOIA (see para. 74 of the decision).
It remains to be seen whether those with an interest in avoiding disclosure of commercially sensitive information will seek to argue in other cases before the tribunal that human rights considerations do in fact alter the analysis of the public interest balance under FOIA and, in particular, that they increase the weight in favour of maintaining the s. 43 exemption.
GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCES PLANS TO EXPAND THE FOIA EMPIRE
The Ministry of Justice has today unveiled plans to extend the scope of FOIA, including plans to expand the number and type of bodies which are subject to FOIA. New authorities falling within the ambit of FOIA will include the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Financial Services Ombudsman, UCAS and all companies wholly owned by more than one public authority. The MOJ also intends to consult on bringing a range of further bodies which are believed to perform public functions within the scope of FOIA, including for example: Examination Boards, Harbour Authorities, the Local Government Association and NHS Federation. The Bar Council and the Law Society are also apparently identified as possible candidates for inclusion. There are also plans to make most public records available at the National Archives after 20 years (rather than the current arrangements where access is not permitted until after 30 years). The Justice Minister Lord McNally has confirmed that the Government intends to carry out a ‘full review of the FOI Act to ensure it is still operating in the most effective way’. In practical terms, it is intended that inclusion of new authorities such as ACPO and the FS Ombudsman to FOIA will be achieved via a Freedom Bill to be introduced by February 2011. See further the MOJ’s Press Release here.
CONFIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INFORMATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS – NEW TRIBUNAL DECISION
A question which is frequently posed under both FOIA and the EIR is whether and to what extent confidential, commercial information can lawfully be withheld by a public authority. The recent decision of the First Tier Tribunal in the case of Staffordshire County Council v IC & Silbelco [2010] UKFTT 573 (GRC), (EA/2010/0015) embodies a number of important principles which should be considered whenever this question is being posed.
In Staffordshire, a request had been made for disclosure of particular commercial information consisting of the sales figures and reserve figures which a particular quarry operator (Sibelco) had generated in respect of the minerals which it quarried. The information had been provided by Sibelco to the local authority under a voluntary scheme. The scheme had been set up with a view to assisting the authority in discharging its statutory obligations as a mineral planning authority. Sibelco had provided the information to the authority on the express basis that it was to be treated in strictest confidence. Following a request for disclosure of the information, the authority refused to disclose the information on the basis that it was exempt under s. 41 FOIA (the confidential information exemption). During the complaints process before the Commissioner, the authority accepted that, in view of the environmental nature of the information, the applicable access regime was the EIR, rather than FOIA. However, it went on to argue that the information was still exempt under r. 12(5)(e) (commercial/confidential information exception) or 12(5)(f) (exception in respect of information provided in confidence) EIR. The Commissioner accepted that both exceptions were engaged in respect of the disputed information. However, he concluded that, on an application of the public interest test, the public interest weighed in favour of the information being disclosed. The authority appealed the Commissioner’s decision to the First Tier Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner had erred as the public interest balance provided for under r. 12(1)(b) EIR weighed in favour of the information being withheld.
Importantly, in analysing the application of the public interest test the Tribunal took into account the recent Court of Appeal judgment in Veolia v Nottinghamshire CC [2010] EWCA 1214. In that case, which was concerned with the access to confidential, commercial information under s. 15 of the Audit Commission Act 1998, Rix LJ concluded that: (a) he could see no reason why ‘valuable commercial confidential information’ could not amount to a ‘possession’ for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights (A1/P1) (b) in the circumstances, unrestricted disclosure of such information would amount to an interference with the A1/P1 right to possession enjoyed by the person whose information it was; and (c) such interference would have to be justified if it were not to be unlawful under the ECHR (see §§120-122). In Staffordshire, the Tribunal relied upon Rix LJ’s reasoning to arrive at the following conclusions on the application of the EIR (and FOIA) to confidential, commercial information (§151):
- ‘The disclosure of confidential information by a public body such as the Appellant engages the ECHR rights of the holder of the confidence;
- A statutory right for the public to have access to any information must have an exception read into it to exempt the disclosure of confidential information in order to give effect to those ECHR rights;
- The presumption in favour of disclosure of all environmental information held by public bodies in Regulation 12(2) EIR 2004 must now be read subject to an exception in the case of any such information which is held by the public body subject to a legal duty of confidentiality;
- Where environmental information is held by a public body which is subject to a legal duty of confidentiality there is recognised to be a “strong public interest” in the maintenance of valuable commercial confidential information;
- Arguments can be advanced on the individual circumstances of the case to seek to justify overriding the duty of confidence for particular pieces of information.’
The Tribunal was of the view that the facts of the case were such that there was no justification for overriding the duty of confidence owed to Sibelco in respect of the disputed information.
In light of the Tribunal’s analysis of the implications of Veolia, it is to be expected that human rights arguments will now commonly feature in any appeal involving an application of the EIR or FOIA to confidential, commercial information.
WATER UTILITY COMPANIES NOT ‘PUBLIC AUTHORITIES’ UNDER THE EIR
The Upper Tribunal has this week handed down an important decision on the question of whether privatised water utility companies are ‘public authorities’ for the purpose of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR): Smartsource v IC & 19 Water Companies (case no. GI/2458/2010). The background to the appeal was that Smartsource had submitted near identical requests for disclosure of information to some 19 water utility companies. It was not in dispute that the requests fell to be addressed under the EIR. The companies refused to provide the requested information on the basis that they were not ‘public authorities’ for the purposes of r. 2(2) EIR and, hence, were not subject to the disclosure obligations provided for in r. 5 EIR. The Commissioner rejected Smartsource’s complaint about the refusal on the basis that he accepted that the companies were not public authorities under r. 2(2). Smartsource appealed the Commissioner’s decision to the tribunal. The importance of the issues at stake in the case resulted in the appeal being transferred to the Upper Tribunal. The central issues which the Upper Tribunal was called upon to determine were as follows: (1) did the companies ‘carry out functions of public administration’ such that they fell within limb 2(2)(c) of the r. 2 definition of public authority; (2) alternatively, were they ‘under the control’ of a relevant public authority such that they fell within limb 2(2)(d) of the r. 2 definition.
With respect to the first issue, the Tribunal held that the companies did not carry out functions of public administration. It reached this conclusion applying a multifactoral approach akin to the approach adopted in the earlier cases of Network Rail v IC (EA/2006/0061) and Port of London Authority v IC & Hibbert (EA/2006/0083). Notably, the Tribunal rejected arguments advanced by Smartsource that the companies fell within limb 2(2)(d) of the definition because they: were appointed as statutory undertakers; were subject to a range of conditions imposed under statute; were subject to a comprehensive regulatory regime; were unable to choose their own customers or set their own prices; were obliged to provide a universal service; and would be subject to State intervention in the event that they failed. With respect to the second issue, the Tribunal held that that the companies were not ‘under the control’ of a relevant public authority for the purposes of r. 2(2)(d). In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal accepted arguments advanced on behalf of the Commissioner and the companies that: the concept of ‘control’ in this context meant something more than that the body in question was merely subject to a stringent regime of statutory regulation; the aim of r. 2(2)(d) was to capture State/Executive functions in all their various guises and not the activities of privatised companies of the sort which were in issue in the instant case.
Importantly, the Tribunal also rejected ‘hybridity’ arguments to the effect that a body can be a public authority under the EIR for some purposes but not for others. According to the Tribunal, the way in which r. 2 was formulated meant that the body either was or was not a public authority (cf. the approach adopted in Port of London v IC).
DISCLOSING DATA FOR PURPOSES OF MEDICAL RESEARCH – NEW ECHR JUDGMENT
Many readers of this blog will be familiar with the stringent protections which the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) affords in respect of personal health data (see further the definition of ‘sensitive personal data’ in s. 2 DPA). Thus, for example, if a data controller wishes to avoid contravening the first data protection principle (the fair and lawful processing principle) as and when it is processing health data, it must ensure that: (a) the particular processing is fair and lawful; (b) that it meets one of the conditions provided for in schedule 2 to the DPA and (c) that it meets one of the very narrowly drawn conditions provided for in schedule 3 to the DPA. If the processing is intended to serve the interests of medical research, the data controller will doubtless wish to look in particular at the condition provided for in paragraph 8 of schedule 3. That condition stipulates that the processing must be ‘necessary for medical purposes’ (which includes the purposes of medical research) and be undertaken either be ‘a health processional’ or ‘a person who in the circumstances owes a duty of confidentiality which is equivalent to that which would arise if the person were a health professional’. Of course, the principle which underpins this particular condition is that it is very much in the public interest that, subject to the test of necessity, health data be shared by medical researchers. A recent judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has highlighted the importance of this particular public interest: Gillberg v Sweden (application no. 41723/06).
In Gillberg, two researchers requested access to health data which had been accumulated by Professor Gillberg as part of a long-term project on hypheractivity and attention deficit disorders in children which he was running out of the University of Gothenburg in Sweden. The University refused access on the basis that assurances had been given to the parents of the children and later the children themselves concerning the confidentiality of the data. The researchers challenged the University’s decision relying on Sweden’s long-established and generous rules on access to official documents. The Swedish administrative court upheld the researchers’ claim and ordered that the University disclose the data to them, subject to the imposition of strict conditions on their handling and use of the data. In reaching the conclusion that the data should be disclosed to the researchers, the Swedish court took into account not least the public interest in ensuring the independent and critical evaluation of medical research in the important field of neuropsychiatry. The data was subsequently destroyed by certain of Professor Gillberg’s colleagues. Thereafter, Professor Gillberg was convicted of misuse of office by the Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsman. Having lost his appeals against conviction in the national courts, Professor Gillberg took his case to the ECHR claiming that the conviction breached his Article 8 and 10 rights, particularly in view of the assurances of confidentiality which he had given to the data subjects and their parents. The ECHR dismissed Professor Gillberg’s appeal. It found that, even if the conviction interfered with Professor Gillberg’s Article 8 right to privacy (i.e. his right to privacy in the context of his professional affairs), that interference was justified in the circumstances. It also found that there was no interference with Professor Gillberg’s Article 10 right to freedom of expression as he was convicted not for giving assurances of confidentiality but rather because he misused his office in response to the judgments of the court.
The ECHR’s judgment is interesting not least because it confirms that, at least for the purposes of human rights jurisprudence, the fact that promises of confidentiality have been given to individual patients/research subjects does not create an automatic bar on disclosures which may breach those promises, particularly where the disclosures serve important public interests such as the interests in protecting the integrity and progress of medical research. Query whether the same result would have obtained on an application of the principles embodied in the DPA, particularly in view of the relatively permissive approach to disclosures for the purposes of medical research contained in paragraph 8 of schedule 3.