Correspondence regarding Abertay University: FOI Review

Information requested

The language used below, including references to a “bailout”, are the precise words used by the requester, and not the Scottish Government

Original request: 202500479357

You asked for the following recorded information held by the Scottish Government and/or the Ministerial Private Office of Graeme Dey, Minister for Higher and Further Education:

Ministerial Oversight of Abertay Bailout

• All communications, briefings, meeting notes, or correspondence authored by, sent to, or received by Graeme Dey regarding the financial support provided to Abertay University between January 2023 and August 2025.
• Any records of discussions or decisions involving Graeme Dey concerning the rationale, risk assessment, or sustainability of Abertay University.

Coordination with Civil Servants and SFC

• Any correspondence between Graeme Dey and Shirley Laing, Director for Lifelong Learning and Skills regarding the bailout, institutional financial health, or reputational risk.
• Any correspondence between Graeme Dey and Scottish Funding Council (SFC) regarding the bailout, institutional financial health, or reputational risk.

Reputational and Political Risk Management

• Any internal assessments, media lines, or reputational risk documents involving Graeme Dey in relation to the Abertay bailout.
• Any communications between Graeme Dey and Jenny Gilruth, Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills regarding public messaging or political strategy linked to the bailout.
• Any communications between Graeme Dey and Scottish Government Communications Directorate regarding public messaging or political strategy linked to the bailout.

Response

Further to my letter of 11 September 2025 I have now completed my review of our response to your request under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) for a review of the decision to apply exemptions under Sections 30(b)(i) and 30(b)(ii) of FOISA to your original request concerning the Scottish Government’s internal deliberations on the Financial Transactions loan offered to Abertay University.

In your request you have confirmed that you are not seeking personal data, commentary or "frank and free advice" on Abertay’s financial health, or stakeholder views provided in confidence.

You have requested us to review and disclose any recorded internal SG materials: briefings, emails, policy notes, meeting minutes that explain the rationale policy decision to offer Abertay University a Financial Transactions loan with the following non-standard features:

1. Extended repayment period (25 years)
2. Flexibility over drawdown and utilisation timing
3. Contingency provisions for alternative schemes if the Energy Centre did not proceed

Your request also states:

“these features deviate from standard FT loan protocols and reflect a policy decision by SG. Under Section 30(b)(i), advice that leads to a finalised and implemented decision such as the approval of a 25-year repayment term is no longer exempt from disclosure. The public interest in understanding the rationale for these deviations, particularly given their impact on public finance and precedent-setting implications, outweighs the interest in withholding internal advice.”

You have requested confirmation that all relevant, recorded information has been identified and disclosed.

In the interest of being a transparent and accountable government, we aim to release all information available to us to inform public debate and carefully balance this to ensure robust policy formulation and decision making. I have re-examined all documents held by the Scottish Government; analysed the exceptions applied to the information released; and reviewed how the public interest test has been applied to the information you received. A further review of databases and recording systems with additional search criteria specific to your request did not reveal further documents related to your enquiry. I can also confirm the exemptions 30(b)(i) and 30(b)(ii) have been properly applied, the public interest test for these exemptions has been applied in favour of release and exemptions have not been applied in a restrictive way.

However, my review has also highlighted that despite these exemptions being applied correctly and the exemptions for the public interest test being applied in favour of release, assessment of the information withheld under exemption 38(1)(b) found that further information should have been released. My review also found that the original response does not provide enough detail on some of the exemptions applied, particularly in relation to the formal notice given under section 17(1) of FOISA that the Scottish Government does not have all the information you have requested. I recognise the original response could have offered a clearer explanation of why the information for allocating the Financial Transaction loan to Abertay University is not available.

I have therefore concluded the original decision should be confirmed, with modifications. In response to these findings, I have attached the modified documents and have set out further detail below on all the exemptions applied providing further detail on why some of the information is unavailable.

I note some information in the documents provided falls outside the scope of your request and has been redacted to ensure the response was not excessive containing large amounts of unrelated information. These redactions are not subject to the “public interest test”.

An explanation of the exemption applied under section 38(1)(b) of FOISA was provided in the original response and I would like to confirm that my review has revealed this exemption withheld some information which could have been released. Although information withheld under this exemption contained personal data, i.e. names, phone numbers or email addresses of individuals, disclosing some of this information would not 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. I have therefore released all personal data which would not contravene GDPR legislation. This exemption is not subject to the ‘public interest test’, and we are not required to consider if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption.

I have reviewed all redacted information where an exemption applied under section 30(b)(i) of FOISA (free and frank provision of advice). I found that this exemption has been properly applied and relates to a small amount of the information requested. The exemption has been applied where the disclosure of advice to Ministers on the information provided would cause significant harm to the emerging policy position and is very likely to have a significant and long-lasting impact on future policy making across the higher education sector as officials are at the early stages of developing a policy position for future consideration. There is a 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 information provided by Abertay University would prevent the policy developing further and will substantially inhibit the provision of such advice in the future, particularly because these discussions are ongoing and relate to sensitive issues such as the funding of Abertay University.

This exemption is subject to the ‘public interest test’. Therefore, 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 favour of upholding the exemption. I recognise that there is a public interest indisclosing 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, as part of the process of exploring and refining the Government’s policy position on university funding, until the Government as a whole can adopt a decision that is sound and likely to be effective. 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. 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 policy making process, which would not be in the public interest.

The decision to apply an exemption under section 30(b)(ii) of FOISA (free and frank exchange of views) has also been carefully considered and applies to some of the information requested. The 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 to have a private space within which to discuss issues and options with external stakeholders before the Scottish Government reaches a settled public view. Disclosing the content of these discussions with Abertay University on their financial affairs will substantially inhibit such discussions in the future. Although universities receive some public funding for the provision of education, they are also autonomous institutions which operate in a commercial environment. Reputational damage to autonomous institutions caused by the Scottish Government disclosing highly confidential information is likely to have a lasting impact on the future disclosure of information from educational institutions. Stakeholders will be reluctant to provide their views fully and frankly if they believe their views and information on their business interests are likely to be made public. This is particularly sensitive while these discussions are still ongoing, and information shared is intended for the consideration of future policy development.

This exemption is subject to the ‘public interest test’. Therefore, 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 favour of 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. However, there is a greater public interest in allowing Ministers and officials a private space within which to communicate with appropriate external stakeholders as part of the process of exploring and refining the Government’s policy position on university financial affairs, until the Government as a whole can adopt a policy that is sound and likely to be effective. This private space is essential to enable all options to be properly considered, so that good policy decisions can be taken based on fully informed advice and evidence, such as that provided by Abertay Universities. Premature disclosure is likely to undermine the full and frank discussion of issues between the Scottish Government and these stakeholders, which in turn will undermine the quality of the policy making process, which would not be in the public interest. There is also an important public interest in avoiding the loss of stakeholder confidence in cases where they thought they were providing comments in confidence, which would be inevitable if an individual’s contribution was released against their wishes.

With regard to the formal notice given under section 17(1) of FOISA, that the Scottish Government does not have all the information you have requested, the reason for this is that the Financial Transactions fund is administered by the Scottish Funding Council (SFC) which is a non-departmental public body established by the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005. The role of the SFC is to hold colleges and universities to account. This includes responsibility for the processes required to allocate funding and for agreeing the terms of Financial Transactions loan. The Scottish Funding Council may hold further information related to your request and can be contacted at:

Scottish Funding Council
Apex 2, 97 Haymarket Terrace,
Edinburgh,
EH12 5HD

Tel: 0131 313 6500
Email: enquiries@sfc.ac.uk

I therefore confirm that as further searches with additional search criteria specific to your enquiry did not identify further documents; exemptions have not been applied in a restrictive way and the information provided in the original response was released with presumption in favour of release, that the Scottish Government has complied with your request in full. I hope additional detail provided in my response is helpful to your enquiry.

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 202500483233 - Information released - Annex A

File type

PDF

File size

405.4 kB