Drugs Commission

You requested:

1. A summary of the submissions made to the Mayor's London Drugs Commission without attribution to any person who made the submission.
2. And/or the report based on those submissions (in whatever form it currently takes).
3. The expected publication date of the Commission's findings.
4. Any internal memos or emails relating to any plans to publish or not publish the Commission's findings.

Our response:

1. A summary of the submissions made to the Mayor's London Drugs Commission without attribution to any person who made the submission.

MOPAC does not hold a summary of the submissions made. In addition, the submissions made to the Commission are exempt from publication under Section 41 – Information Provided in Confidence. However, the final LDC report will list all those who participated in the evidence gathering process and clarify whether this was through written or oral submission.

The rationale for this information being covered by section 41:

· the submissions that were made to the London Drugs Commission, were provided in strict confidence for the purpose of informing the work of the Commission.

· even in summary, these documents could be attributed to their author and breach confidence

• a person could a legal person could bring a court action for that breach of confidence
• that court action would be likely to succeed

This is a qualified exemption that requires a public interest test.

Public Interest test:

Factors in favour of maintaining confidentiality

• disclosure would be an unauthorised use of the information to the detriment of the submitter
• disclosure would be a breach of confidence
• disclosure of confidential information will undermine the principle of confidentiality and the relationship of trust between MOPAC and stakeholders

• individuals and organisations may be discouraged from confiding in MOPAC if they don’t have a degree of certainty that this trust will be respected.
• disclosure could result in a successful court action for breach of confidence

Factors in favour of disclosure

• public interest in ensuring public bodies are transparent, accountable and open to scrutiny
• further public understanding of, and participation in, the debate of issues of the day
• enable individuals to understand decisions made by public authorities affecting their lives and, in some cases, assist individuals in challenging those decisions

Balance Test

The factors in favour of maintaining confidentiality outweigh the public interest in disclosure, therefore the submissions are exempt from disclosure under the FOIA.

2. And/or the report based on those submissions (in whatever form it currently takes).

This is exempt from release under Section 22 for future publication. Work is underway in preparing this document for publication and it is expected that the document will be available soon. This is a qualified exemption, therefore the public interest test is required.

Public Interest Test :

Factors favouring disclosure

• To disclose the requested information would adhere to the basic principle of being open and transparent. 
• Disclosure of the report would provide valuable information on the work and outcomes of the London Drugs Commission.

Factors favouring non-disclosure

• There is a pre-existing intention for the Independent London Drugs Commission to publish their report.
• The Commission are currently carrying out ongoing work in order for this publication to be made on the GLA website.  Once this work has been collated, checked, verified and confirmed as per normal business process, it will be published. 
• To disclose this information before publication would be unhelpful and has the potential to leave the information open to misinterpretation. 
• It would not be in the public interest to disrupt the ongoing process set out above and would be a waste of public funds.

Balance Test

There are factors favouring both disclosure and non-disclosure.  The main factor favouring disclosure is openness and accountability; however, the impact of this factor is diminished due to the pre-existing intention of the Commission to publish this information. Therefore, the public interest at this time lies in favour of non-disclosure for the reasons outlined above.

3. The expected publication date of the Commission's findings.

The final report is expected to be published in the coming months. The exact date of publication has not yet been decided.

4. Any internal memos or emails relating to any plans to publish or not publish the Commission's findings.

MOPAC does hold information relating to this request. However, this has been exempted under in section 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and s36(2)(c) of the FOIA for prejudice to the conduct of Public Affairs.

This is a qualified exemption under the FOIA that applies to information that can be withheld if this release would, or would be likely to, inhibit-

(i) the free and frank provision of advice, or

(ii) the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation

Or

(c) would otherwise prejudice, or would be likely to otherwise prejudice, the effective conduct of public affairs

Arguments under s36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) are generally based on the concept of a ‘chilling effect’. The chilling effect argument is that disclosure of discussions would inhibit free and frank discussions in the future, and that the loss of frankness and candour would damage the quality of advice and deliberation and lead to poorer decision making.

In this case, the disclosure of the communications would be likely to inhibit the ‘free and frank provision of advice’, as well as ‘ the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation’ and would likely ‘prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs’ as set out in s36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the FOIA. Disclosure would likely inhibit the ability of senior officials to engage in frank discussions relating to emerging, sensitive and ‘live’ situations in order to make decisions on how best to precede. By their very nature, these communications are often imparted quickly and with candour as situations develop, and private space is needed for such an environment. Those taking part in the exchanges do so on the basis that they are able to work through issues in free and frank exchanges without an expectation that the details will be made public. Release of the information would be likely to lead to more guarded opinions being expressed, thereby resulting in a reduction in the quality of that free and frank advice.

This information is also exempted under section 36 (2)(c). In this instance , the release of this information would likely prejudice the findings and recommendations of the Commission. Furthermore, disclosure would likely prejudice the publication decision making process.

As this a qualified exemption we must conduct a public interest test as detailed below:

Public Interest Test

Factors in favour of disclosure

• There is a reasonable expectation for scrutiny of public authorities and work funded by public expenditure.
• To release would abide to principles for public authorities to be open and transparent.
• There is public interest in knowing the timing of publication of a publicly funded report.

Factors in favour of non-disclosure

• To disclose would likely inhibit officials’ future ability to engage in free and frank discussion, potentially impacting on the provision of high-quality advice.
• The release would likely prejudice the findings and recommendations of the Commission.
• The release would likely prejudice the publication decision making process.

Balance Test

After considering the factors in favour of both disclosure and non-disclosure, we believe the reasons to exempt this information outweigh public interest. We acknowledge the significant public interest in releasing emails relate to the publication of the London Drugs Commissions report. However, the potential harm caused through impeding the provision of free and frank advice as well as the potential to prejudice the findings and recommendations of the Commission and the decision-making process regarding publication are significant. As a result, this information has been exempted from disclosure.