Deputy Director of Propriety and Ethics correspondence with various members of the People Directorate: FOI Review

Information requested

Original request 202500457465

I would like copies of all correspondence between Ashleigh Gray and Judith Mackinnon.

I would like copies of all correspondence between Ashleigh Gray and Nicola Richards.

I would like copies of all correspondence between Ashleigh Gray and Barbara Allison.

Response

I have now completed my review of our response to your request under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) (202500457465) for –

I would like copies of all correspondence between Ashleigh Gray and Judith Mackinnon.

I would like copies of all correspondence between Ashleigh Gray and Nicola Richards.

I would like copies of all correspondence between Ashleigh Gray and Barbara Allison.

I have concluded that the initial response should be confirmed, with modifications.

I have reviewed the response and as requested in your review request, reconsidered the information withheld under the exemption at 36(1) (confidentiality in communications). I have concluded that some of the information you requested should be released. As a result, I enclose one document. As you will see from the enclosed document, some information remains withheld under the following exemptions:

• Section 30(b)(i) of FOISA (free and frank provision of advice);
• Section 30(b)(ii) of FOISA (free and frank exchange of views);
• and Section 38(1)(b) (Personal information).

I can confirm that the exemptions applied under sections 30(b)(i) (free and frank provision of advice) and to some of the information requested was correct. This exemption was applied because disclosure would, or would be likely to, inhibit substantially the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation. The 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 view. Disclosing the content of free and frank exchange of views would likely substantially inhibit the exchange of such views in future.

I can confirm that I agree with the application of 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 agree that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exemption. I do recognise there is a public interest in disclosing information as part of open, transparent and accountable government, and to inform public debate. However, I agree that there is a greater public interest in allowing a private space within which officials can exchange full and frank views, as part of the process of exploring and refining the Government’s policy position. This private thinking space is essential to enable all options to be properly considered, based on the best available advice, so that good policy decisions can be taken. 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 policy making process, which would not be in the public interest.

I can also confirm that I agree with the exemption under section 30(b)(ii) of FOISA (free and frank exchange of views) being applied to some of the information requested. This exemption was applied 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 the requirement of a private space within which to discuss and explore options before a settled view is reached. Disclosing the content of free and frank discussions would substantially inhibit such discussions in the future.

I can also confirm that I agree with the application of the public interest test. This exemption is subject to the ‘public interest test’. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, I am content that we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption. I agree that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exemption. I do recognise that there is a public interest in disclosing information as part of open, transparent and accountable government, and to inform public debate. However, I am content that there is a greater public interest in allowing for a private space in which to explore and refine options before a settled view is reached. This private thinking space is essential to enable all options to be properly considered, so that good policy decisions can be taken. Disclosure is likely to undermine the full and frank discussion of issues between officials, which in turn will undermine the quality of the policy making process, which would not be in the public interest.

An exemption under 38(1)(b) (Personal information) of FOISA also applies to some of the information requested because it is personal data of a third party, i.e. email addresses, names, phone numbers etc., 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. 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. of FOISA applies to that information.

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 202500466185 - Information released - Annex

File type

PDF

File size

987.6 kB