Correspondence regarding Genesis II: EIR Review
Information request and response under the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004.
Information requested
Original request 202500467382
All correspondence to and from your staff regarding the "Genesis II" vessel from May 1st to the date at which you process this request. Please provide emails as .eml files including all attachments in their original format. There may some overlap between this request and previous requests given reference numbers 202500466861 and 202500466861. Please include all responsive documents in response to this request, regardless of duplication.
Response
I have now completed my review of our response to your request under the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (EIRs) for correspondence relating to the “Genesis II” vessel.
Your original request for information:
All correspondence to and from your staff regarding the "Genesis II" vessel from May 1st to the date at which you process this request. Please provide emails as .eml files including all attachments in their original format. There may some overlap between this request and previous requests given reference numbers 202500466861 and 202500466861. Please include all responsive documents in response to this request, regardless of duplication.
Your request for review:
“Thank you for taking the time to prepare this response. I would like to ask for a clarification and, if necessary, a review of some points in your response. In many of the documents entire email addresses are redacted. For example document three the sender and a carbon copy recipient are entirely redacted under reg 11(2). I would like to clarify that these addresses were not from the @gov.scot or another official domain and ask, if there were, for the domain names to be unredacted in this case and others. This and other documents also show attachments which are not included. Please could you revisit your response and provide all attachments, redacting as necessary, and un-redact domain names where they are from official domains, either UKFMC, @gov.scot or otherwise.”
I have concluded that the original decision should be confirmed, with modifications.
Regarding the redaction of email domain names under Regulation 11(2) of the EIRs (personal information). In some cases, for example, in internal Scottish Government emails, the “@gov.scot” domain name is not displayed in the original correspondence therefore no information is available regarding the domain name, after the redaction of personal information has been carried out. Annex A provides information of where this is the case, i.e. a redaction has been applied to an individuals’ name and the sender or receiver has an “@gov.scot” email address. In all other cases, the decision to remove email domain names, where that information could identify an individual, has been upheld under Regulation 11(2) of the EIRs.
Regarding missing attachments, I have reviewed the case and believe that all attachments were included in the original case, however the numbering system used didn’t make the connection between documents clear. A summary of where the numbering of email (document) and its’ associated attachments differs, is provided below and, also captured in Annex A.
- Document 3 states there is 1 attachment - this is Document 13.1
- Document 4 states there are 2 attachments – these are Documents 4.1 and 23
- Document 9 states there is an attachment – this is Document 22
- Document 13 states there are 3 attachments – these are Document 3, the attachment to Document 3, Document 13.1, and Document 8.
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.
Contact
Please quote the FOI reference
Central Correspondence Unit
Email: contactus@gov.scot
Phone: 0300 244 4000
The Scottish Government
St Andrew's House
Regent Road
Edinburgh
EH1 3DG