Correspondence relating to meetings with representatives of Israeli embassy and the Israeli government: FOI Appeal

Information requested

Any correspondence since January 2024 relating to meetings with representatives of the Israeli embassy in the UK or meetings with other representatives of the Israeli government. 

Response

As you will be aware, the Scottish Information Commissioner has issued Decision Notice 114/2025 relating to this case and requires that we disclose information to you that was wrongly withheld under exemptions at sections 32(1)(a) (international relations) and 30(c) (effective conduct of public affairs). This information is enclosed as Annex A (items 1-5).

As part of complying with Decision Notice 114/2025, the Commissioner also required the us to carry out thorough and comprehensive searches for further information falling within scope of your original request, and to issue you with a revised review response based on those searches.

Revised review response
Thank you for your request, made on 21 August 2024, for “any correspondence since January 2024 relating to meetings with representatives of the Israeli embassy in the UK or meetings with other representatives of the Israeli government”

As required by Decision Notice 114/2025, we have considered your request fully and conducted thorough and comprehensive searches for the information that you have requested. I am sorry that much of this information was not identified at the point your request was made, because we took an overly narrow interpretation of your request. We were dealing with a high volume of requests on this matter, placing a lot of pressure on officials in the relevant team. However, we have now identified and considered the information in scope of your request for disclosure.

Most of this information has been disclosed to you, subject to certain exemptions, previously. This information is provided here as Annex B. However we have identified 5 additional items and have included these as part of Annex A (items 6-11).

While it is our aim to provide information wherever possible, in this case exemptions apply to some of the information you have requested.

Section 32(1)(a) - international relations
Section 32(1)(a)(i) states that “information is exempt information if its disclosure under the Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice substantially relations between the United Kingdom and any other State.” The exemption applies in this instance because disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice substantially relations between the United Kingdom and Israel. The effective conduct of international relations depends upon maintaining trust and confidence between the UK Government and other states. In this case, the information withheld under this exemption was shared with the Scottish Government on the understanding that it would be treated as being in confidence. If the Scottish Government does not respect this confidence, the UK Government’s relations with other States and its ability to protect and promote UK interests will be substantially prejudiced. States such as Israel are likely to be more reluctant to share sensitive information with Scotland or other parts of the United Kingdom in future, which would reduce both the frequency and openness of communications with the UK.

Additionally, the Scottish Information Commissioner has published guidance on how authorities such as the Scottish Government should apply this exemption. The guidance states that “Public authorities need to concentrate on the potential impact that disclosure may have on a particular relationship or interest, rather than looking solely at the nature, content and/or sensitivity of the information. Disclosing potentially controversial information about one state may have little or no impact on international relations, while disclosing seemingly innocuous information about a different state may have a substantial impact. Existing political relations or diplomatic sensitivities are likely to be relevant.” This guidance advises us to consider the potential wider impact, not just the nature of the material itself.

The material considered as in-scope for release consists of correspondence between governments which was considered to be confidential. Were the Scottish Government to disclose this material, contrary to the expectations of the Israeli Government, it would be reasonable to expect that doing so would likely prejudice relations between Israel and Scotland and between Israel and the United Kingdom because they would no longer be assured that communications could be shared in a way which allows for discussion between the two countries confidentially.

In your request for a review of our original response, you noted the statement published by the Scottish Government following the meeting with the Israeli Deputy Ambassador. The publication of this statement has no bearing on the consideration on releasing confidential correspondence under FOISA. A unilateral public statement is different from disclosing correspondence between two parties which was understood to be confidential – this would be a breach of trust which could substantially prejudice relations.

This exemption is subject to the public interest test. Taking account of all the circumstances of your request, 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 a public interest in disclosing information as part of open, transparent and accountable government, and to inform public debate. However, there is a greater public interest in ensuring that the UK Government can maintain good relations with other states, in order to protect and promote UK interests abroad. There can be no public interest in jeopardising those relations by the Scottish Government disclosing confidential information. Additionally, releasing this confidential correspondence could affect our dealings with other states who could similarly be less inclined to communicate freely with either the Scottish Government or the UK Government.

Section 30(c) - effective conduct of public affairs
This exemption also applies to the information withheld under section 32(1)(a). This is because it is essential for Ministers to be able to communicate and meet, often in confidence, with external stakeholders, in this case the Israeli government, on matters that cover devolved policy interests. Disclosing the content of these communications and information about such meetings, particularly without the consent of the Israeli government, is likely to undermine their trust in the Scottish Government and will substantially inhibit communications on this type of issue in the future.

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 a public interest in disclosing information as part of open, transparent and accountable government, and to inform public debate. However, there is a greater public interest in ensuring that the Scottish Government is able to maintain good relations with other States, in order to protect and promote Scottish interests abroad. There is a vital public interest in allowing Scottish Ministers and officials a private space within which to engage in full and frank discussions with their counterparts in other States. Such discussion makes for better quality and better informed policies and decisions on issues with an international dimension and aids the protection and promotion of Scotland’s interests abroad.

Section 29(1)(b) - Ministerial communications
An exemption under section 29(1)(b) of FOISA (Ministerial communications) applies to a small amount of the information requested because it relates to communications between Scottish Ministers.

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 a public interest in disclosing information as part of open, transparent and accountable government, and to inform public debate. However, there is a greater public interest in allowing Ministers a private space within which issues can be explored and refined, until the Government as a whole can reach a conclusion. This private thinking space also allows for all options to be properly considered, so that good decisions can be taken. Premature disclosure is likely to undermine the full and frank discussion of issues between Ministers, which in turn will undermine the quality of the decision making process.

Section 29(1)(d) - Operation of a Ministerial Private Office
An exemption under section 29(1)(d) of FOISA applies to some of the information you have requested. This exemption applies to email and Whatsapp conversations that are related to the operation of a Ministerial Private Office.

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 because of the subject matter as well as the interest in open and transparent government. However, this is outweighed by the public interest in the effective running of Ministerial Private Offices in assisting Ministers with their day-to-day duties.

Section 30(b)(i) - free and frank advice
An exemption under section 30(b)(i) of FOISA applies to some of the information you have requested. This exemption applies to email conversations where members of the Scottish Government provide free and frank advice, and where disclosure would substantially inhibit the provision of such advice in the future. The exemption recognises the need for Ministers and officials to have a private space within which to discuss and explore options before reaching a settled public view. Disclosing the content of free and frank advice related to meetings with the representatives of the Israeli government will substantially inhibit such discussions in the future because these discussions to relate to a sensitive and controversial issue, the current crisis in the Middle East.

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 because of the subject matter as well as the interest in open and transparent government. However, this is outweighed by the public interest in government officials having the space to explore and refine the government’s public position. This private space is vital to allow all options to be properly considered, so that good decisions may be taken.

Section 30(b)(ii) - free and frank exchange of views
An exemption under section 30(b)(ii) of FOISA applies to some of the information requested. This exemption applies because disclosure would, or would be likely to, inhibit substantially the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation. This exemption recognises the need for Ministers and officials to have a private space within which to discuss and explore options before the Scottish Government reaches a settled public view. Disclosing the content of free and frank discussions will substantially inhibit such discussions in the future, particularly because these discussions relate to a sensitive or controversial issue.

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 a public interest in disclosing information as part of open, transparent and accountable government, and to inform public debate. However, there is a greater public interest in allowing Ministers and officials a private space within which to explore and refine the Government’s position certain issues, until the Government as a whole can adopt a position that is sound and likely to be effective. This private thinking space is essential to enable all options to be properly considered, so that good policy decisions can be taken. Premature disclosure is likely to undermine the full and frank discussion of issues between Ministers and officials, which in turn will undermine the quality of the decision making process, which would not be in the public interest.

Section 36(1) - confidentiality in legal proceedings
An exemption under section 36(1) of FOISA applies to a small amount 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) - personal data
An exemption under section 38(1)(b) of FOISA applies to some of the information you have requested. This exemption applies to personal data belonging to a third party. This includes names of junior civil servants as well as individuals from other organisations. Disclosing this information 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. 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

Further, a small amount of the additional information identified is not held by the Scottish Government for the purposes of FOISA because we received it in confidence from the UK Government. This means that, under the terms of section 3(2)(a)(ii) of FOISA, we are unable to disclose it in response to your request. However, you may wish to submit a new request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office at FCDOServices.DataProtectionOfficer@fcdo.gov.uk who should be able to help you further.

About FOI

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

FOI 202400432808 - Information Released - Annex A

File type

PDF

File size

520.7 kB

FOI 202400432808 - Information Released - Annex B

File type

PDF

File size

1.4 MB