COVID-19 vaccine eligibility for frontline health & social care worker groups: FOI Review

Information requested

Original request 202500494428

You asked for information on the following, in respect of the removal of unpaid carers from the COVID-19 vaccination programme:

1. Timeline discrepancy and date of the Scottish Government’s decision

2. Wider implications for clinical safety

3. Request for documentation of the decision

4. Minutes or summary of the meeting with carer representatives on 22 August 2024 5. Retrospective assessment

Response

I have now completed my review of our response to your request (202500494428) under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA), where you requested the following:

• Evidence of compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty
• Application of exemptions relating to policy development and free and frank advice
• Scope of searches and interpretation of the request
• August 2024 engagement with carer organisations

Your review request

In your email of 15 December 2025, you express your dissatisfaction with our original response regarding the ‘reliance on exemptions and the adequacy of searches undertaken’ specifically the ‘application of exemptions relating to policy development and free and frank advice’ under section 30 of FOISA.

Our response

I have been asked to re-examine your request, to decide whether the original response should be confirmed, with or without modifications, as appropriate, or a fresh decision be substituted. I can confirm that I was not involved in the handling or decision-making around the original response. I have considered this case again, and have conducted a comprehensive review of the response.

In accordance with section 21(4) of Freedom of Information (S) Act, I have reached a decision on your request.

I have concluded that the original decision should be confirmed with modifications. We are upholding the redactions made, however, I have ascertained that some of the information is exempt from disclosure under section 29(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy) of FOISA.

An exemption under section 29(1)(a) of FOISA (formulation or development of government policy) applies to some of the information requested because it relates to the development of the Scottish Government’s policy on COVID-19 vaccination.

You should note, however, in terms of the redactions made to Document 1 (Ministerial Submission) supplied to you in the original response, I asked for greater clarification to be added to why individual elements have been redacted and enclose this revised document.

Taking each of the four parts of your review in turn, my response is as follows:

• Evidence of compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty

I re-evaluated your request, previous response and the searches completed. I can confirm I have found no other information or documentation other than those provided to you on 10 December 2025 within your response (202500494428).

I can confirm that the Minister’s decision on 14 June 2024 to accept the advice to remove unpaid carers from COVID-19 eligibility was based on the JCVI’s position discussed at a committee meeting on 27 February 2024, subsequently confirmed in the JCVI statement dated 08 April, which was published on 02 August 2024. Links to pertaining documentation and publications were shared with you in the original response.

Further, the official JCVI advice, published on 02 August 2024 and linked in the original response, outlines that the JCVI’s recommendation considered estimates of the numbers needed to vaccinate (NNV) for the potential benefits of population vaccination; a cost effectiveness assessment by age group and clinical risk group; indirect benefits for those living and working with vulnerable people; and impact on people living with post-COVID syndromes. This shows that the JCVI itself took into consideration wider aspects of vaccination, including equality considerations.

Finally, the original response outlined that officials considered equality implications through stakeholder engagement and internal discussion. This included recognition that unpaid carers may face additional challenges if unwell and unable to provide care. These considerations were balanced against JCVI advice and the need to prioritise groups at highest clinical risk. Lead officials ascertained to me that the decision-making process included awareness of Public Sector Equality and Fairer Scotland duties and engagement with representative organisations. Internal correspondence that demonstrates awareness of equality impacts and shows engagement with carer organisations and awareness of their concerns were included with the original response.

I therefore conclude and confirm that all reasonable steps were taken to identify any documentation that evidences equality considerations.

• Application of exemptions relating to policy development and free and frank advice

I have reviewed the relevant documentation and in particular those elements that were redacted under section 30 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.

In re-evaluating the exemptions applied I have established that we appropriately applied section 30(c) (effective conduct of public affairs)of FOISA. However, we were incorrect to apply section 30(b)(i) to a small amount of the information. I have ascertained that some of the information is exempt from disclosure under section 29(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy) of FOISA.An exemption under section 29(1)(a) of FOISA (formulation or development of government policy) applies to some of the information requested because it relates to the development of the Scottish Government’s policy on COVID-19 vaccination.

This exemption is subject to the ‘public interest test’ as there are considerations on policy development for COVID-19 vaccination made in June 2024 which still impact on considerations made for the current COVID-19 vaccination programme today. 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 on COVID-19 vaccination 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.

Please find enclosed a revised “Document 1 - Redacted - Ministerial Submission - FVCV 2024-25 JCVI Winter Statement” with further details on reasons for redactions.

• Scope of searches and interpretation of the request

I can confirm that the request was interpreted as seeking information more broadly on how equality and health impacts were considered prior to the removal of unpaid carers from eligibility, not narrowly on the existence of a formal EQIA or HIA. I am confident that robust and proportionate searches of the corporate record, including staff inboxes and folders were commissioned within the relevant policy areas, such as Carers Policy, Vaccine Equalities Policy, and Covid & Flu Vaccines Policy, all situated within Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates.

I can confirm that searches included informal records such as email correspondence and briefing notes prepared ahead of the June 2024 decision, the pertaining search results having been shared with you in the original response.

An explanation of how equality considerations fed into the ministerial decision on COVID-19 vaccine provision in June 2024 was provided to you in the original response and under section (1) of my review above.

In conclusion, I uphold the original response to this part of your review and am satisfied that adequate searches were completed and the information held was provided to you.

• August 2024 engagement with carer organisations

I have reviewed the available documentation and searches with regards to this engagement and can confirm that, as outlined in the original response, no notes, slides, summaries, or follow-up correspondence exist in relation to this meeting – beyond the information (slide deck ‘document 4’ in originally enclosed attachments); and that no records exist that link this engagement to the already-taken June 2024 decision.

The original response outlined that the meeting held on 22 August 2025 was one of a series of regular meetings held by our carers policy team with national carer organisations. These are informal meetings are held to share information. No formal decisions are made in these meetings and no minutes/formal notes are held.

The original response outlined further that this meeting was not held to form part of the formal decisionmaking process. Officials from the Seasonal Vaccines and Strategy Team were in attendance and provided an overview of eligibility changes. Officials acknowledged concerns raised by the carer organisations and aimed to provide clarity on the JCVI’s rationale.

In conclusion, I uphold the original response to this part of your review.

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 202500498562 - Information released - Document 1

File type

PDF

File size

389.2 kB