Section 30 - Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs

Challenge a refusal under FOISA section 30 - the authority says disclosure would harm the effective conduct of public affairs

What this exemption means#

The authority is saying that disclosing the information would harm its ability - or the ability of Scottish Ministers - to conduct public affairs effectively. This is one of the most commonly used exemptions and one the Scottish Information Commissioner frequently overturns.

This is a qualified exemption, so the authority must pass the public interest test even if the exemption itself applies.

What the authority must show#

Section 30 has four grounds. The authority should say which one applies:

Section 30(a) - disclosure would substantially prejudice the maintenance of the convention of collective responsibility of Scottish Ministers
Section 30(b)(i) - disclosure would substantially inhibit the free and frank provision of advice
Section 30(b)(ii) - disclosure would substantially inhibit the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation
Section 30(c) - disclosure would otherwise substantially prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs

For all limbs, the authority must:

Name the specific subsection it is relying on
Explain the specific harm that would result from disclosure - not just assert it
Show the information is less than 15 years old
Carry out and explain a public interest test

Things to check#

Did they specify which part of section 30? Section 30(a), (b), and (c) cover different types of harm. Simply citing “section 30” without saying which part is vague and may not be sufficient.
Is the claimed harm specific to this information? The Commissioner does not accept blanket “chilling effect” arguments - the idea that officials would be less candid if any internal advice were ever disclosed. The authority must explain why disclosing this particular information would cause harm. A generic argument that could apply to any internal document is unlikely to succeed.
Is the harm realistic? The threshold is “substantial” - meaning real and of demonstrable significance, not marginal. For section 30(b), the word is “inhibit” - meaning to restrain or suppress. The Commissioner requires evidence of a genuine link between disclosure and the claimed harm.
Has the matter been concluded? If the policy or decision the information relates to has been settled, the case for harm is significantly weaker. The authority would need to explain why disclosure would still cause harm to future processes.
Is the authority using 30(c) as a catch-all? Section 30(c) can only be used for harm that isn’t covered by 30(a) or 30(b). If the authority is really arguing about protecting advice or views, it should be using 30(b), and must meet that specific test.
Public interest? There is often a strong public interest in understanding how public bodies make decisions, particularly where significant public money or public concern is involved. The Commissioner has ordered disclosure under section 30 where the public interest in transparency outweighed the claimed harm.

Use the interactive tool#

Answer the questions below to check whether section 30 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 see how public authorities operate and to hold them accountable for their decisions
Scrutiny of decision-making The public can examine how and why decisions were reached, especially where those decisions affect people's lives
Public spending and value for money Where significant sums of public money are involved, there is a strong interest in understanding how decisions about spending were made
Building public trust Openness helps maintain confidence in public institutions and prevents the distrust that comes from secrecy
Matters of significant public concern Where a topic has attracted sustained public, media, or political attention, the case for transparency is especially strong
Diminished sensitivity over time As time passes and decisions are implemented, the case for withholding weakens and the interest in accountability grows stronger

What authorities typically argue

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

Chilling effect on candour Authorities argue that disclosing internal discussions would make officials more cautious and less frank in future, reducing the quality of advice
Private space for internal deliberations Authorities claim they need space to discuss, test, and evaluate options without premature public scrutiny
Protecting risk management processes Disclosure of risk registers or internal assessments could lead to less candid recording of risks in future
Protecting stakeholder relationships Releasing information shared in confidence could damage the authority's ability to work with external partners, chairs, or advisors
Risk of undermining ongoing processes For matters still being considered, disclosure could disrupt or prejudice the process and its outcomes
Impact on future provision of advice Officials and advisors would be reluctant to put views in writing if they knew those views might be published

Factors that tipped the balance

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

Information was not actually sensitive The Commissioner found the information was routine, factual, or not expressed in a particularly frank way, so disclosure would not cause the claimed inhibition
Authority failed to demonstrate harm The authority's arguments about prejudice were generic, unsubstantiated, or not specific to the actual content of the information
Sensitivity diminished over time Enough time had passed that the information had lost its sensitivity, and disclosure could no longer cause the harm the authority claimed
Specific public interest was especially strong The Commissioner found the public interest in the particular topic - such as major public spending or healthcare decisions - outweighed the general arguments for withholding
Meaningful public interest test not conducted The authority applied the exemption as a blanket without properly assessing whether the public interest genuinely favoured withholding for each piece of information
Transparency unlikely to cause inhibition The Commissioner found that reasonable officials would continue to provide candid views on matters within their professional responsibilities regardless of disclosure

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