Regulation 10(4)(d) - Material in the course of completion

Challenge a refusal under EIR regulation 10(4)(d) - the authority says the information is unfinished or incomplete

What this exception means#

The authority is saying the information you asked for relates to material that is still being completed, unfinished documents, or incomplete data. This exception is designed to protect work in progress from premature disclosure.

Unlike FOISA, all EIR exceptions are subject to a public interest test and must be interpreted restrictively. There is a presumption in favour of disclosure.

What the authority must show#

For this exception to apply, the authority must demonstrate that:

The information falls within one of the three categories in the exception: material in the course of completion, unfinished documents, or incomplete data. These are distinct - an abandoned draft can still be an “unfinished document” even if no further work is planned
There is a reasonable basis for treating it as incomplete - not just that the authority would prefer to finalise it first
It has considered whether partial disclosure of completed elements is possible
It has told you when the material is expected to be finished - regulation 13(d) requires the refusal to state this
The public interest in withholding outweighs the public interest in disclosure

Things to check#

Which category applies? “Material in the course of completion” implies work that is actively ongoing. “Unfinished documents” is different - a draft can stay unfinished even where no further work is planned, so an abandoned document is not automatically outside the exception. Ask the authority which category it relies on and why. For long-stalled work, the public interest in withholding is usually weak even where the exception technically applies.
When will it be finished? Under regulation 13(d), the refusal must state the time by which the authority considers the material will be finished or completed. If no date was given, that is a procedural failure worth raising in your review. And an indefinite delay is not acceptable - you have a right to the information that exists now.
Did they consider partial disclosure? Even if some elements are unfinished, completed parts of the information may be disclosable. The authority should have considered whether it could release the parts that are complete, rather than refusing everything.
Is this being used to delay disclosure? Sometimes authorities cite unfinished material to buy time when the real concern is about the content. If the information has been “in progress” for an extended period without a clear end date, this exception may be being misused.
Public interest in early access. There may be a strong public interest in seeing draft or incomplete environmental information - particularly where it relates to an active environmental decision, a planning process, or an issue with public health implications. Early access to draft material can improve public participation in decision-making.

Use the interactive tool#

Answer the questions below to check whether regulation 10(4)(d) has been properly applied to your request.

What the evidence shows

Arguments that have supported disclosure

In cases where the public interest test favoured disclosure, these themes appeared most often.

Informed public participation The public needs access to draft reports and research to participate meaningfully in environmental consultations and decision-making
Accountability for policy decisions Where an authority has relied on incomplete work to support a policy position, the public should be able to see the underlying material
Scrutiny of public spending There is a strong interest in understanding the basis for decisions involving large-scale public spending on environmental projects
Understanding iterative decision-making Comparing draft and final versions helps the public understand how decisions evolved and what influenced the outcome
Information advanced enough to disclose Where a document has reached an advanced stage of completion or been shared with third parties, the case for withholding it is weaker

What authorities typically argue

These are the arguments authorities most commonly make when withholding information under this exception. Knowing them helps you prepare a stronger case.

Protecting the drafting process Authorities argue they need private space to finalise documents without premature scrutiny that could disrupt the process
Avoiding public confusion Releasing incomplete documents could mislead the public, since findings might change as work progresses
Preserving quality control Peer review and quality assurance processes exist to ensure accuracy, and releasing material before review undermines this
Protecting private policy space Ministers and officials need space to develop thinking and arrive at settled views before facing public scrutiny

Factors that tipped the balance

In decisions where the Commissioner ordered disclosure, these factors were decisive.

Authority relied on the material publicly Where the authority cited or quoted from the unfinished material in public documents, it could not then claim the material was too incomplete to disclose
Information was sufficiently advanced The work had reached an advanced stage of completion, making withholding less justifiable
Broader scrutiny serves the public interest Allowing wider critical scrutiny of draft analysis is valuable, especially for decisions involving substantial public spending
Content was process rather than substance Information about process and progress, rather than substantive policy conclusions, could be disclosed without the harm the authority claimed

Based on published decisions of the Scottish Information Commissioner. You can browse the decisions on the Commissioner's website.