Correspondence regarding Teneo and GFG Alliance: FOI Review

Information requested

Original request - 202200269706

“1) Any contract, specification of work, or correspondence with Teneo around its work with the Scottish Government looking at GFG Alliance.

2) Any internal and external correspondence involving or referencing Teneo's work examining GFG Alliance and its subsidiaries..”

Response

This case is now at appeal with the Scottish Information Commissioner, and on review we have concluded that we were not entitled to apply section 12 (the upper cost limit) to this request. Therefore, we are issuing the following revised review response.

As set out in our original review response, the Scottish Government does not have a contract in place for the provision of consultancy support from Teneo specific to GFG Alliance. A contract was awarded to Deloitte LLP for the provision of advice relating to the Lochaber guarantee. Teneo was subsequently established as a separate entity to Deloitte LLP and the two entities continue to share some legacy work. Invoicing and billing to the Scottish Government continues to take place via Deloitte LLP. A copy of the contract award notice is available here:

https://www.publiccontractsscotland.gov.uk/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=JUL420539

I am therefore satisfied that section 25(1) (information otherwise accessible) was used appropriately in relation to your request for a contract or specification of work with Teneo at part 1) above.

While our aim is to provide you with information wherever we can, on this occasion we are unable to provide you with all of the information you have requested as some of the information which falls within the scope of your request should be withheld under section 30(c) (substantial prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs) and 38 (1)(b) (Personal Data )of FOISA.

An exemption under section 30(c) applies because disclosure would, or would be likely to, cause substantial prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs by damaging communications and engagement with external stakeholders, particularly when those parties have not consented to the release of the information. This would subsequently cause substantial prejudice to the ability of the Scottish Government or other public bodies to make informed decisions regarding the GFG Alliance businesses like Liberty Steel Dalzell and Lochaber smelter.

This exemption is subject to the ‘public interest test’. Taking account of all the circumstances of this case, I have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption. I have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in upholding the exemption.

I recognise that there is a public interest in disclosing information as part of open, transparent and accountable government, and to inform public debate. I also recognise the public interest in industries such as Liberty Steel Dalzell, and in how the government works with companies like GFG Alliance and Teneo where public funds are involved.

However, given the importance of the steel to Scotland, I believe that this is outweighed by the public interest in maintaining a productive relationship between the Scottish Government and GFG Alliance. It is of vital importance to Scotland, and the people of Scotland, that the Scottish Government maintains good relations with GFG Alliance and in protecting the free exchange of information between both to ensure that we keep each other fully and regularly informed about matters of mutual interest which may impact on the Scottish Government’s guarantee or associated securities and its relationship with key stakeholders.

Further although it is important that in all cases there must be a balance between the public interest in transparency against the private interest in confidentiality I have determined disclosure of additional information regarding Teneo would not serve a greater public interest and is likely to prejudice substantially the Scottish Government’s commercial relationship with the company.

The public interest lies in protecting some sensitive information in the service of allowing future interactions. There is no public interest in disclosing information when that will damage relationships and disrupt future engagement.

Therefore, the public interest lies in upholding the exemption.

Section 36(1) – Legal Advice - exemption under section 36(1) of FOISA (confidentiality in legal proceedings) applies to some of the information requested because it is legal advice and disclosure would breach legal professional privilege. This exemption is subject to the ‘public interest test’. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exemption. We recognise that there is some public interest in release as part of open and transparent government, and to inform public debate. However, this is outweighed by the strong public interest in maintaining the right to confidentiality of communications between legal advisers and clients, to ensure that Ministers and officials are able to receive legal advice in confidence, like any other public or private organisation.

Section 38(1)(b) – (third party Personal Data) has been applied to withhold third party personal data. As you may be aware this exemption applies to some of the information requested because it is personal data of a third party, i.e. names and contact details of individuals (junior officials and those not in senior positions in external organisations), and disclosing it would contravene the data protection principles in Article 5(1) of the General Data Protection Regulation and in section 34(1) of the Data Protection Act 2018.

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.

FOI 202200301933 - Information Released - Annex

File type

209 page PDF

File size

8.8 MB