Regulation 10(5)(f) - Interests of the information provider

Challenge a refusal under EIR regulation 10(5)(f) - the authority says disclosure would harm the interests of the person who provided the information

What this exception means#

The authority is saying that disclosing the information would, or would be likely to, cause substantial prejudice to the interests of the person who voluntarily provided the information. This exception is designed to encourage the voluntary flow of information to public authorities - for example, information from research surveys, whistleblowing, or voluntary submissions.

This exception has three strict preconditions that must all be met before it can even be considered. If any one of them fails, the exception cannot apply - regardless of any harm claim.

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.

Important: This exception cannot be used to withhold information about emissions - regulation 10(6) specifically prohibits this.

What the authority must show#

For this exception to apply, all three of the following preconditions must be met:

The person was not legally obliged (and could not be legally obliged) to supply the information
The person did not supply it in circumstances where it could be made available except by an EIR request
The person has not consented to the information being disclosed

And additionally:

Disclosure would cause substantial prejudice to the interests of the person who provided it
The information is not about emissions (which cannot be withheld under this exception)
Even if the exception applies, the public interest in withholding outweighs the public interest in disclosure, applying the presumption in favour of disclosure

Things to check#

Was the information provided voluntarily? If the authority has legal powers to require the information - even if it didn’t actually use them - the exception cannot apply. For example, if a regulator can compel a company to submit data, the fact that the company submitted it without being compelled does not make it “voluntary” for the purposes of this exception.
Did the provider actually refuse consent? The Aarhus Implementation Guide makes clear that it is not enough that the provider supplied information voluntarily - the provider must also have denied consent for it to be released. Has the authority actually asked the provider and received a refusal? If the authority hasn’t asked, or the provider hasn’t objected, this condition is not met.
Is the provider a public body? If the information was provided by another public authority or by a body acting in a public capacity, the claim for protection is weaker. The exception is primarily designed to protect private individuals and businesses who voluntarily share information with regulators.
Is this internal information? The exception only applies to information from third parties. The Aarhus Convention and Commissioner’s decisions make clear that internal communications and jointly negotiated wording cannot be withheld under this exception. If the authority created the information itself, regulation 10(5)(f) does not apply.
Does the information relate to emissions? Under regulation 10(6), information about emissions cannot be withheld under this exception. This has been interpreted broadly to include data about discharges, pollution, and environmental releases.
Would disclosure genuinely discourage future voluntary provision? This is the core harm the exception is designed to prevent. The authority should demonstrate that disclosure would actually inhibit the future flow of voluntary information - not just that the provider would prefer confidentiality.
The public interest test is essential. Even if all preconditions are met, the authority must demonstrate that the public interest in withholding outweighs the public interest in disclosure, applying the EIRs’ presumption in favour of disclosure.

Use the interactive tool#

Answer the questions below to check whether regulation 10(5)(f) 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.

Transparency and accountability The public has a right to understand how authorities handle complaints and exercise their environmental responsibilities
Openness in environmental matters There is a general public interest in transparency about environmental issues, even where information was provided voluntarily

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 voluntary informants Authorities argue that people and organisations who provide information voluntarily must be able to trust it will remain confidential
Maintaining future information flow If voluntary information is disclosed, others may stop sharing, reducing the authority's ability to monitor and protect the environment
Protecting commercial interests of providers Disclosure could harm the commercial interests of farms, businesses, or organisations that shared data voluntarily
Preserving fair competition Revealing information shared in confidence could distort the market or disadvantage those who cooperated
Protecting third-party interests Disclosure could cause harm to individuals or organisations who provided information without expecting it to be made public

Factors that tipped the balance

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

Anonymised disclosure possible The Commissioner found that disclosing the information in an anonymised form would not prejudice the interests of the person who provided it

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