Correspondence on calls for inquiry or review into group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse: FOI Review

Information requested

Original request - 202500488098

All correspondence and records held by the Scottish Government from 1 September 2025 to 30 September 2025 that relate to calls for an inquiry or review into group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse (also known as grooming gangs) in Scotland.

Response

Further to my letter of 17 November 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 202500488098 as you do not believe the exemptions have been correctly applied, and are not satisfied that all relevant information falling within the scope of the original request has been identified and considered for release. I have concluded that a different decision should be substituted.

Response to your request for review
I have reviewed all of the documents under the original FOI and have concluded that the information was not considered for partial release, and instead documents were wholly withheld. I now attach documents which I have identified for release.

While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance I am unable to provide some of the information you have requested because exemptions under sections s.38(1)(b) (personal information), s.30(b)(i) (provision of advice), s.30(b)(ii) (exchange of views), s.29(1)(a) (formulation of Government policy), s.25(1) (information otherwise accessible) and s.36(1) (confidentiality of legal proceedings) of FOISA applies to that information. The reasons why these exemptions apply are explained below.

An exemption under section 38(1)(b) of FOISA (personal information) applies to a small amount of the information released because it is personal data of a third party, i.e. names, email addresses and contact details, 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.

An exemption under section 30(b)(i) of FOISA (free and frank provision of advice) applies to some of the information requested. This exemption 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 consideration of calls for a review or inquiry into group-based child sexual exploitation will substantially inhibit the provision of such advice in the future, particularly because these discussions are still ongoing and decisions have not been taken.

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 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 position on the calls for a review or inquiry into group-based child sexual exploitation, 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 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.

An exemption under section 30(b)(ii) of FOISA (free and frank exchange of views) applies to some of the information requested. This 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 and officials to have a private space within which to discuss and explore options before the Scottish Government reaches a settled public view. Disclosing the content of free and frank discussions on consideration of the calls for a review or inquiry into groupbased child sexual exploitation will substantially inhibit such discussions in the future, particularly because these discussions are still ongoing and decisions have not been taken.

This exemption is subject to the ‘public interest test’. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exemption. We 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 explore and refine the Government’s position on consideration of calls for a review or inquiry into group-based child sexual exploitation, 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, 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.

An exemption under s.29(1)(a) (formulation of Government policy) of FOISA applies to some of the information you have requested. This exemption relates to the formulation of the Scottish Government’s policy.

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 high quality policy and decision-making, and in the properly considered implementation and development of policies and decisions. This means that Ministers and officials need to be able to consider all available options and to debate those rigorously, to fully understand their possible implications. Their candour in doing so will be affected by their assessment of whether the discussions will be disclosed in the near future, when it may undermine or constrain the Government’s view on that policy while it is still under discussion and development.

An exemption under section 36(1) of FOISA (confidentiality in legal proceedings) applies to some of the information requested because it is legal advice and disclosure would breach legal professional privilege. 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 some public interest in release as part of open and transparent government, and to inform public debate. However, this is outweighed by the strong public interest in maintaining the right to confidentiality of communications between legal advisers and clients, to ensure that Ministers and officials are able to receive legal advice in confidence, like any other public or private organisation.

An exemption under section 25(1) (information otherwise accessible) applies to some of the information you have requested. Where relevant documents are already in the public domain I have provided internet links, which I hope are helpful to you. These links are included in the attached documents.

I have reviewed the material released to you under the original request at Annex A. I note that the response to your original request refers to an exemption under section 30(c) (effective conduct of public affairs) of FOISA being applied to some of the information released to you. Having reviewed this material I have concluded that this exemption did not apply. In the original response to your query a reference was also made to ‘marine planning’ when setting out the rationale for exemption under s.29(1)(a) of FOISA. This was a drafting error and I apologise for this.

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 202500492594 - Information Released - Annex

File type

PDF

File size

4.9 MB