Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) National Strategic Group and Development Group meeting information: FOI Review

Information requested

Original request 202500494239

All information contained in minutes of and papers presented to the meetings of the MAPPA National Strategic Group and MAPPA Development Group over the previous two years.

I have taken that request to be two years from the date of your correspondence.

Response

I have now completed my review of our response to your request under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) for “all information contained in minutes of and papers presented to the meetings of the MAPPA National Strategic Group and MAPPA Development Group over the previous two years”.

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 and the reasons behind withholding the requested information. I have concluded that the original decision should be confirmed, with modifications.

The reasoning for my decision is provided below and for clarity is set out by each exemption type used, as you expressed a dissatisfaction with the quantity of redactions made within the information released.

Section 29(1)(a) - formulation or development of government policy

I concur with the original decision that an exemption under section 29(1)(a) of FOISA applies to some of the information requested as it relates to the formulation and development of the Scottish Government’s policy on public protection measures, including MAPPA and Significant Case Reviews.

However, in applying the public interest test I consider that some of the information previously withheld should be disclosed. Specifically, this applies to information where disclosure does not inhibit the formulation of policy or where information is already publicly available. Where this is not the case, I am content that exemptions under section 29(1)(a) should be upheld.

Although there is a public interest in disclosing information as part of open, transparent and accountable government, 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 discussions on public protection measures 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.

As noted above, we are now releasing some information that was previously withheld from disclosure. Please find attached with this letter an updated copy of the information you requested.

Section 30(b)(i) - free and frank provision of advice

I have examined the information withheld under Section 30(b)(i) of FOISA (free and frank provision of advice) and have concluded that this exemption should be upheld.

This exemption applies to some of the information requested where 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 other officials before the Scottish Government reaches a settled public view. Disclosing the content of free and frank advice on the management of serious offenders will substantially inhibit the provision of such advice in the future, particularly because of the sensitive nature of public protection.

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 other officials, as part of the process of exploring and refining the Government’s position on how best to support and strengthen MAPPA, until the Government as a whole can adopt a policy 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.

Section 30(b)(ii) - free and frank exchange of views

Having examined the information withheld under section 30(b)(ii) I am content that this exemption has been applied appropriately.

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. Similarly to section 30(b)(i) relating to the free and frank exchange of advice, 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 the management of serious offenders and development of related documentation will substantially inhibit such discussions in the future, particularly given the inherent sensitivities, including in relation to sexual and terrorism offences. While I recognise there is a public interest in disclosing information as part of open, transparent and accountable government, and to inform public debate, I concur with the original decision that the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exemption.

Section 30(c) - the effective conduct of public affairs

As recorded in the response letter dated 16 December 2025, an exemption under section 30(c) has been applied to certain documents relating to your request. I have examined the information withheld under this exemption and am satisfied that it has been applied appropriately in the original response. 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. Disclosing this information would substantially prejudice the ability to implement public protection measures because it would undermine the processes and documentation used to manage high-risk offenders. This would constitute substantial prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs in terms of the exemption. Whilst there is a public interest in disclosing information for the purposes of transparency, there is a greater public interest in ensuring public protection measures are robust.

Section 38(1)(b) - personal information

Having reviewed the use of this exemption in the original response, I am content that it has been applied appropriately.

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 202500499737 - Information released - Annex

File type

PDF

File size

5.1 MB