Sponsorship and oversight of the Scottish Fiscal Commission (SFC) queries: FOI Review

Information requested

Original request 202500478551

You asked for the following information regarding the Scottish Government’s sponsorship and oversight of the Scottish Fiscal Commission (SFC), with particular focus on its legal compliance, safeguarding policies, use of public funds, and ideological neutrality.

Response

I have now completed my review of our response to your request under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) for Internal review of Freedom of Information request - FOI Request - Oversight of the Scottish Fiscal Commission: Equality Act Compliance, Safeguarding, EDI Influence, and Statutory Neutrality.

The review process included:

• Examination of the original response and associated annexes (Annexes A and B);
• Consideration of the information and documents available at the time of the original response;
• Assessment of the appropriateness of the exemptions applied.

The conclusion of the review is that the original decision is upheld, with modifications applied.

In summary, the modifications applied relate to the following:

1. Exemption under section 30(b)(i) of FOISA – Free and frank exchange of advice. In the original response, one document within scope was withheld under this exemption. This document was an email concerning the appointment of new Scottish Fiscal Commission’s (SFC) commissioners. As part of this review, the application of this exemption and the associated public interest test have been reconsidered. As a result, a redacted version of the email has now been released and is provided in Annex A.

1. Exemption under section 38(1)(b) of FOISA – Personal data. In the original response this exemption was applied to information in the document that was released in Annex B of the original response as well as the email withheld under s.30(b)(i). The application of s.38(1)b has been reconsidered. As a result:

2. The documents in Annex A have been issued with appropriate redactions.

3. The document in Annex B has been reissued with unredacted SCS email addresses.

Certain aspects of the review request have been identified as new information requests following assessment. These are therefore being handled independently under a separate FOI request (reference 202500484160).

Detailed responses to each of the points raised in the review request are provided below, along with further explanation of the modifications applied to the original response and the parts that have been considered new requests. Please note that the response to your FOI request dated 3 August 2025 with reference 202500478551 is hereafter referred to as the ‘original response’ and the request as the ‘original request’.

“Dear Scottish Government,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Scottish Government's handling of my FOI request 'FOI Request – Oversight of the Scottish Fiscal Commission: Equality Act Compliance, Safeguarding, EDI Influence, and Statutory Neutrality'.

Please treat this as a request for internal review of your response to FOI 202500478551 (dated 1 September 2025). The response is incomplete and does not comply with FOISA.”

1) “Information not held” (s.17) – inadequate searches and remit misunderstanding

“Your reply repeatedly asserts information not held because the SFC is operationally independent. However, the Directorate exercises sponsor/oversight functions and necessarily generates/receives sponsorship communications, briefings, PB (Public Bodies) updates, and accuracy-check exchanges with SFC. Indeed, your own Annex shows SG issued system-wide Public Bodies Information Updates and emails to sponsor teams about the Supreme Court ruling and asked Chief Executives to cascade SG’s note (PB Info Update 390 and related emails). This demonstrates that relevant SG records exist within Exchequer Strategy/Sponsor Team mailboxes and PB Unit channels and that searches must include those holdings. Please conduct fresh, recorded searches (email/EDRMS/SharePoint/Teams, sponsor mailboxes, PB Unit mailboxes) and disclose responsive material or lawfully exempt it with s.17 explained case-by-case.”

Response:

As set out in the original response, the Directorate for Exchequer Strategy has a liaison function with the SFC but does not hold a sponsorship or oversight role.

The Public Bodies Unit issues communications to all public bodies. When contacted during the handling of the original request, the Public Bodies Unit provided the document released in Annex B of the original request. No other communications from the Public Bodies Unit were identified as falling within scope. This document was released in full, with redactions applied only for personal information under section 38(1)(b) of FOISA.

As part of this review, searches for in scope information were revisited to ensure they were sufficiently thorough and appropriately targeted. No additional information was identified, and the conclusion under section 17 (Information not held) remains unchanged. Therefore, this is a formal notice under section 17(1) of FOISA that the Scottish Government does not have the information you have requested.

2) Free and frank advice (s.30(b)(i)) – over-broad application; public interest test lacks particulars

“You applied s.30(b)(i) generically to “some of the information,” but did not:

• Identify which passages/documents are covered;
• Provide a granular public-interest test tied to the specific content;
• Release segregable factual material (titles, dates, distribution lists, factual summaries) that is not deliberative.

Given the subject matter—Equality Act 2010 compliance, safeguarding, statutory neutrality, and public spending—the public interest in transparency is weighty. Please reassess s.30(b)(i) line-by-line, disclose non-deliberative/factual parts, and provide a document-by-document schedule setting out the harm and public-interest factors for each withheld item.”

Response:

In the original response, one document within scope was withheld under s.30(b)(i). This document was an email concerning the appointment of new Scottish Fiscal Commission’s (SFC) commissioners.

The rationale for applying the exemption was detailed in the response issued to you. At the time of your request, the recruitment process was ongoing, and it was assessed that the sensitivity of the content warranted withholding the document in full. I have reviewed this and have determined that this exemption was applied appropriately at the time of your request. However, as the recruitment process has now concluded, this review has reassessed the application of the exemption and I have determined that this can now be released. The document, with appropriate redactions, has now been released and is provided in Annex A.

An exemption under section 30(b)(i) of FOISA (free and frank provision of advice) has been applied to some of the content of the document in Annex A.This exemption still applies because disclosure would, or would be likely to, inhibit substantially the free and frank provision of advice. This exemption recognises the need for officials to have a private space within which to provide free and frank advice to Ministers before the Scottish Government reaches a settled public view. Disclosing the content of free and frank advice on the released email will substantially inhibit the provision of such advice in the future.

This exemption is subject to the ‘public interest test’. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, it has considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption. It is concluded that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exemption. It is recognised 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 a private space within which officials can provide full and frank advice to Ministers. This private thinking space is essential to enable all options to be properly considered, based on the best available advice, so that good 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.

As a result, in line with FOISA guidance and the public interest in transparency, the following is confirmed:

• Non-deliberative and factual material has been disclosed where possible.
• The document has been reviewed line-by-line to ensure that only exempt information remains withheld.
• The submission referenced in the email falls outside the scope of the original request and has not been considered in this review.

3) Personal data (s.38(1)(b)) – disclose with redaction, not blanket withholding

“Where names/contact details of junior officials occur, apply targeted redaction, not wholesale non-disclosure. Senior decision-makers’ names/titles engaged in sponsorship/oversight should be disclosed for accountability unless a specific, evidenced risk applies. Please re-issue with appropriate redactions rather than blanket s.38.”

Response:

S.38 (1) (b) exemption was applied to information in the document that was released in Annex B of the original response and the withheld email. This exemption was applied in accordance with Scottish Government policy of redacting the names of officials who are below SCS level. In Annex B, generic email addresses, and those relating to the mailboxes of SCS (e.g. Chief Planner) were disclosed.

Document in Annex A has been issued with appropriate redactions.
Document in Annex B has been reissued with unredacted SCS email addresses.

The exemption under section 38(1)(b) of FOISA (personal information) continues to apply to Annex A and Annex B because it is personal data of a third party, i.e. names and email addresses of officials below SCS level, 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.

4) Partial disclosure & s.15 duty to advise/assist – missing

“You did not offer refinement/splitting or indicate which parts could be disclosed now (e.g., sponsor team accuracy-check emails on SFC publications; EIAs/notes held by SG; PB Unit guidance and cascades; correspondence with SFC about neutrality/terminology). Please now comply with s.15 (advice and assistance) and process any separable parts immediately. If cost/time is genuinely an issue at any point, split the request and process all parts that fall within the statutory limits without blanket refusal.”

Response:

Section 15 of FOISA requires that “a Scottish public authority must, so far as it is reasonable to expect it to do so, provide advice and assistance to a person who proposes to make, or has made, a request for information to it.” The original response sought to meet this duty by:

• Explaining the nature of the Directorate’s relationship with the Scottish Fiscal Commission (SFC);
• Directing you to relevant information available on the SFC’s website, including a recent FOI response.

Advice on refinement or splitting was not offered, as this was not considered relevant in the context of the request. Where it was stated that the information was not held by the Scottish Government, refinement or splitting would not have changed that outcome. The cost limit was not raised as an issue, as it was possible to determine within the statutory limit that the information was not held.

The purpose of this review is to assess whether the original response complied with FOISA, not to reframe or reprocess the request. The original response did not issue a blanket refusal; rather, it addressed each part of the request and explained where information was not held or exempt. As part of this review, all information provided has been re-evaluated and it has been concluded that the exemptions applied were appropriate and correctly applied.

5) Specific deficiencies and required actions

“Please provide (or lawfully exempt with granular reasons and public-interest tests):

1. Search schedule/logs for all “not held” answers: systems, date ranges, search terms, custodian mailboxes (Exchequer Strategy sponsor team, PB Unit, legal liaison).”

Response:

Please be advised that this question has been classified as a new request for information, as it was not included in the original submission. Accordingly, a separate response will be issued in due course.

2. “Sponsor communications with SFC since 1 Jan 2024 that touch on Equality Act definition of sex, safeguarding, compelled speech, terminology (“gender identity”, “cisgender”, “assigned at birth”), neutrality/accuracy checks on SFC outputs, and any referrals for legal advice. Disclose factual accuracy exchanges and routing slips even if deliberative content is redacted.”

Response:

Please be advised that this question has been classified as a new request for information, as it was not included in the original submission. Accordingly, a separate response will be issued in due course.

3. “The PB Info Update 390 pack and any follow-on sponsor guidance or tracking showing it was cascaded to SFC and actioned. (Annex indicates such items exist within SG holdings.)”

Response:

Please be advised that this question has been classified as a new request for information, as it was not included in the original submission. Accordingly, a separate response will be issued in due course.

4. “Any EIAs/impact notes or legal assessments held by SG concerning SFC governance/comms frameworks (if none, confirm none held).”

Response:

Please be advised that this question has been classified as a new request for information, as it was not included in the original submission. Accordingly, a separate response will be issued in due course.

5. “Names/titles of senior decision-makers who approved the application of s.30(b)(i) and who are accountable for sponsor oversight of SFC within Exchequer Strategy (with junior staff details redacted as needed)."

Response:

Please be advised that this question has been classified as a new request for information, as it was not included in the original submission. Accordingly, a separate response will be issued in due course.

6. “Where you direct me to SFC’s own FOI reply (FoI-2025-10 on SFC’s site), clarify which parts of my request SG actually holds versus those you believe only SFC holds; do not rely on a third-party link in lieu of disclosing SG’s own holdings.”

Response:

The reference to the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s (SFC) Freedom of Information (FOI) response (FoI-2025-10) was provided in accordance with s.15 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA), which places a duty on public authorities to provide advice and assistance to applicants. This reference was intended to supplement the information provided by the Scottish Government, not to substitute or redirect you away from Scottish Government’s own holdings.

For clarity, the Scottish Government holds information relevant to the parts of your request that fall within its remit, and this information has been disclosed accordingly. Where the subject matter of your request relates to information held solely by the SFC, this has been indicated, and the SFC’s published FOI response was cited to assist you in accessing that material directly from the source.

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 202500482902 - Information released - ANNEX A

File type

PDF

File size

157.3 kB

FOI 202500482902 - Information released - ANNEX B

File type

PDF

File size

177.4 kB