Hamilton Report redaction queries: FOI release

Information requested

1. Is this passage stating that neither Gavin Henderson (Deputy Director – Organisational Continuity Team), Neil Rennick (Director – Organisational Continuity Team) nor Lesley Fraser (Director General Corporate) made the physical redactions to the Hamilton Report?

2. If so, I do not understand the material difference between providing oversight of the redactions versus the physical task of redacting the report, I also request all communications of the senior officials, junior officials, regarding the physical redactions of the report.

3. How many junior officials carried out the physical task of redacting the report?

4. Were any of these junior officials special advisors?

5. From what department did the junior officials work in?

6. Did any of these junior officials become special advisors?

Response

In relation to your first request, I can confirm that the senior officials listed were responsible for overseeing or directing the redaction process.

In relation to your second request, Senior staff provide oversight and direction to staff who report to them. This is normal in any line management situation.

While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, under section 14(1) of FOISA public authorities are not required to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious.

The Scottish Information Commissioner's guidance on vexatious requests at: Briefings and guidance | Scottish Information Commissioner says that “The following factors will be relevant to a finding that a request (which may be the latest in a series of requests or other related correspondence) is vexatious:

i. It would impose a significant burden on the public authority;
ii. it does not have a serious purpose or value;
iii. it is designed to cause disruption or annoyance to the public authority;
iv. it has the effect of harassing the public authority;
v. it would otherwise, in the opinion of a reasonable person, be considered to be manifestly unreasonable or disproportionate.”

While each request is evaluated on its own merits, the Commissioner's guidance in section 14(1) states in paragraph 28 that a requester's history of dealings with a public authority can be relevant when determining whether a request is vexatious. Further, paragraph 34 of the guidance states that where a request is the latest in a series, they can be considered collectively when assessing the burden they impose on the public authority. We have responded to numerous recent requests from you on this topic, with over 20 on the same general subject already in 2025 plus regular requests for reviews. This pattern of continuous requests has been taken into consideration. This current request imposes a significant burden on the Scottish Government, requiring a disproportionate amount of time and diverting unreasonable financial and human resources away from other statutory functions. The majority of your requests to date have had a significant impact on a small team.

The scope of the request is extremely broad, requiring significant time and resource to collate all communications between senior and junior officials regarding the physical redactions of the Hamilton report. This burden is compounded by the fact that this is the latest in a long series of requests on essentially the same topic. When viewed cumulatively, the impact on public resources is substantial.

Moreover, the purpose or value of this request is difficult to discern, particularly given the extensive dialogue that has already taken place on this subject. The distinction between “doing” and “overseeing” the redactions has already been explored in detail, and we are now being asked to revisit ground that has been thoroughly covered.

When we weigh the significant burden of this request against its limited value, we believe that it is disproportionate.

This request, for all communications of the senior officials and junior officials, regarding the physical redactions of the report is considered vexatious under section 14(1).

In relation to your third request, Under section 25(1) of FOISA, we do not have to give you information which is reasonably accessible to you. If, however, you do not have internet access to obtain this information from the website listed, then pleasecontact me again and I will send you a paper copy.

The information you requested can be found in paragraph 30 of Decision 144/2025

In relation to your fourth request, I can confirm that none of these junior officials were special advisers.

In relation to your fifth request, the junior officials were part of the Organisational Continuity Team.

In relation to your six request, I can confirm that none of the junior officials became Special Advisers.

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.