The response states that such information falls under Article 35 – which allows for the non-disclosure of information relating to the formulation and development of policies.
The request submitted said: ‘The public who will be funding the new hospital are entitled to know why Overdale was selected and why the other sites were rejected.’
However, the response said that a public-interest test was carried out and the Scheduled Public Authority had decided to withhold the information.
Reasons for not disclosing such information included: ‘Disclosing the workings and discussions of ministerial committees could reveal potential disagreements on details of policy and even policies themselves which, if made public, would undermine consensus-driven decision-making as outlined in the Code of Conduct and Practice for Ministers and Assistant Ministers (2018) and hence undermine the working of government.
‘Ministers must be at liberty to express their views frankly and candidly, without the fear of their views being automatically or even potentially reported in public, otherwise they might express their views less vigorously or more circumspectly, or even feel restrained from voicing them at all.
‘The risk, if publication takes place, is that discussion between ministers become stilted and constrained, known as the chilling effect, by the knowledge that such discussions could be made public and decision-making would not have the benefit of the full range of freely expressed opinions to inform it.
‘On balance, and considering the above, it is our view that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.’
