National Advisory Committee on Chronic Pain (NACCP) patients: FOI review

Information requested

1. To ask, under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act, individually and separately, for all electronic or other written communications and information, including notes, between Scottish Government officials and appointees and anyone involved with the National Advisory Committee on Chronic Pain (NACCP) dealing with moves to appoint individual chronic pain patients and any Charities to NACCP, covering the period November 15, 2020 to February 15, 2021.

2. To ask, under FOISA, individually and separately, all electronic or other written communications and information, including notes, between Scottish Government officials and appointees and the Government funded partnership organisation, the Health and Social Care Alliance, covering the period November 15 2020 to February 15, 2021 regarding the appointment of individual patients and any Charities to the National Advisory Committee for Chronic Pain (NACCP) the Alliance having been assigned to this work by the Government, this request covering the period November 15, 2020 to February 15, 2021

3. To ask, under FOISA, for the budget assigned to the Health and Social Care Alliance for a project on individual chronic pain patients being appointed to the National Advisory Committee on Chronic Pain, monies being assigned for 2020 and for 2021/2 and how much of that has been paid and how much of the budget remains.

Response

I have reviewed the information provided to you under points 1 and 2 above. Point 3 is already in the public domain and the link to the information was provided in the response to the original request.

I have concluded that the original decision should be confirmed, with modifications and the modifications re detailed below.

In terms of your request for a review, you asked about the reason for the redaction in the original response. The redaction of names was carried out under exemption s38(1)(b), as was explained in Annex C of the original request.

An exemption under section 38(1)(b) of FOISA (personal information) applies to some of the information requested because it is personal data of a third party (i.e. names/contact details of individuals), and disclosing it would contravene the data protection principles in Schedule 1 to the Data Protection Act 1998. This exemption is not subject to the ‘public interest test’, so we are not required to consider if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption.

The redactions are due to the fact that the individual is a Scottish Government (SG) official of a grade below the Senior Civil Service and SG policy is generally that such information is out of the scope of a request. We aim to treat third party bodies the same way, redacting the names of junior staff, but releasing those of senior people.

Some of the original emails do not display the domain of the sender or recipient as e.g. John.Smith@gov.scot but simply as John Smith, and so the entire name has been redacted, if the circumstances set out above apply.

Specific queries
You also had some specific queries, which are addressed below.

In Annex A, first email, Dec 15, 2020,17.31 the sender is “from Redacted.” to three sources at gov.scot. The subject is within scope entirely and is totally innocuous. To remove the sender completely is not acceptable under FOI normally. What was the reason? The redaction is due to the fact that the sender is a Scottish Government (SG) official of a grade below the Senior Civil Service and SG policy is generally that such information is out of the scope of a request.

On January 19, 2021, the sender is “from redacted” to a named charity. And cc’d to redacted @gov.scot. This is marked “out of scope” but if there is anything in there which is deemed to be out of scope, it cannot be a sender, surely? The subject is entirely within the scope of the FOI request. What was the reason?

As above, the redaction of the sender’s name is due to the fact that the sender is a Scottish Government (SG) official of a grade below the Senior Civil Service and SG policy is generally that such information is out of the scope of a request.

In terms of the other information marked out of scope, I agree with the judgement that it is out of the scope of your original request as it pertains to other issues and not to the appointment process to NACCP.

In Annex B, Jan 27 2021 16.13 is from “redacted” to the Alliance. This three line message is labelled “out of scope” but is entirely within the FOI request but again surely that does not apply to a sender? What was the reason?

As above, the redaction of the sender’s name is due to the fact that the sender is a Scottish Government (SG) official of a grade below the Senior Civil Service and SG policy is generally that such information is out of the scope of a request.

However, in terms of one of the recipients at the Alliance, due to them holding a senior position, I concluded that the name can be released and the email is copied at Response A below, with the information unredacted.

In terms of the other information marked out of scope, I agree with the judgement that it is out of the scope of your original request as it pertains to other issues and not to the appointment process to NACCP.

On December 7 2020 at 17.03 it’s from Redacted to redacted, cc redacted and redacted! What was the reason for this quadruple removal?

On December 7 at 17.17, it’s from Redacted to the Alliance. What was the reason?

Also on Dec 7, at 16.36, it’s from redacted to the Alliance. Marked “out of scope” yet it was all about appointments to the NACCP, the scope. What was the reason?

As above, the redaction of the sender’s name in the email timed December 7 2020 at 17.17 is due to the fact that the sender is a Scottish Government (SG) official of a grade below the Senior Civil Service and SG policy is generally that such information is out of the scope of a request.

However, in terms of the email timed December 7 2020 at 17.03 I have concluded that the name of one of the recipients at the Alliance can be released, due to them holding a senior position in that organisation. In addition I have concluded that the name of an external party can also be released and the email is copied at Response B below, with the information unredacted.

About FOI
The Scottish Government is committed to publishing all information released in response to Freedom of Information requests. View all FOI responses at http://www.gov.scot/foi-responses.

FOI202100187441 - Information released

File type

PDF

File size

46.5 kB