Communication with Minister for Parliamentary Business and his office relating to the Proposed Prostitution (Offences and Support) Bill: FOI Review

Information requested

Original request: 202600505368

Please provide all communication to and from Graeme Day, Minister for Parliamentary Business and his office relating to the Proposed Prostitution (Offences and Support) Bill The bill was also known as the Unbuyable bill and was brought forward by Ash Regan MSP. Please also provide any communication from his office that mentions Ash Regan MSP. 21st of September 2025 onwards.

Response

Please provide all communication to and from Graeme Day, Minister for Parliamentary Business and his office relating to the Proposed Prostitution (Offences and Support) Bill The bill was also known as the Unbuyable bill and was brought forward by Ash Regan MSP. Please also provide any communication from his office that mentions Ash Regan MSP. 21st of September 2025 onwards.

I have considered the comments made by you in your request for a review, which are as follows:

I am writing to request an internal review of the response to my request under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (reference 202600505368).

While I appreciate that some information has been released in Annex A, I believe the response applies several exemptions too broadly and that further information may fall within the scope of the request.

I would therefore ask that the decision be reconsidered on the following grounds.

Application of section 29(1)(a) – formulation or development of government policy

The response states that section 29(1)(a) applies because the information relates to the Scottish Government developing its response to the Prostitution (Offences and Support) Bill.

However, the parliamentary scrutiny process for the Bill has already progressed significantly and the Government’s position on the legislation has been publicly stated.

Scottish Information Commissioner guidance indicates that the sensitivity of policy advice reduces once policy development has moved forward or decisions have been made. In this case the Stage 1 process for the Bill has already taken place and the legislative process is well advanced.

The response does not explain why disclosure of the specific information withheld would still prejudice the development of policy at this stage.

I therefore ask that the application of section 29(1)(a) be reconsidered.

Application of section 29(1)(d) – operation of ministerial private office

The response also applies section 29(1)(d), which relates to the operation of ministerial private offices.

However, the correspondence disclosed in Annex A shows that the communications concern substantive legislative matters including the scheduling of the Stage 1 debate and the handling of the financial resolution for the Bill.

These issues appear to relate to the parliamentary handling of legislation rather than purely administrative matters concerning the operation of a ministerial private office. 

It is therefore unclear why this exemption applies to the withheld information, and I would ask that its application be reconsidered.

Application of section 30(b)(i) – free and frank provision of advice 

The response states that disclosure would inhibit the free and frank provision of advice.

However, the reasoning provided is generic and does not explain how disclosure of the specific information withheld would be likely to cause substantial inhibition.

The Scottish Information Commissioner has previously emphasised that authorities must demonstrate a real and significant likelihood of substantial prejudice, rather than relying on general assertions about the need for private space.

Given the significant public interest in transparency around the handling of a Member’s Bill within the legislative process, I request that the public interest balance be reconsidered.

Public interest considerations

The response acknowledges a public interest in transparency but concludes that the exemptions should prevail.

However, the public interest factors appear to have been considered only briefly. 

In this case there is a strong public interest in transparency around:

• ministerial involvement in the handling of parliamentary legislation
• the scheduling and management of a Member’s Bill within the parliamentary timetable
• interactions between government business and Member’s Bills.

The material disclosed in Annex A suggests that the correspondence relates directly to these issues, which are central to the functioning of the parliamentary process.

Time-sensitivity of exemptions

I would also ask that the review take into account that the correspondence relates to events surrounding the scheduling and consideration of a specific Member’s Bill during the parliamentary process.

The Stage 1 scrutiny process and related parliamentary proceedings have now concluded. As a result, the sensitivity of any internal discussions regarding the Government’s approach to that stage of the process is likely to have reduced significantly.

The Scottish Information Commissioner has frequently emphasised that the weight attached to exemptions relating to policy formulation or internal deliberation diminishes once the relevant policy or decision-making process has progressed or concluded.

I would therefore ask that the review reassess whether the continued withholding of this information remains justified in light of the passage of time and the current stage of the legislative process. 

Completeness of the disclosure

The correspondence disclosed in Annex A appears to refer to earlier communications and attachments.

It is not clear whether full email chains and attachments have been provided.

I would therefore be grateful if the review could confirm:

• whether all email threads have been released in full
• whether any attachments have been withheld and, if so, under which exemptions
• that all information falling within the scope of the request has been identified.

Clarification of withheld material

The response states that exemptions apply to “some of the information requested”, however it is not clear how many documents or communications have been withheld in total.

For transparency, I would be grateful if the review could confirm:

• the number of documents or email chains withheld in full
• the number of documents partially redacted
• whether any attachments have been withheld.

This information would assist in understanding the extent to which the exemptions have been applied.

Conclusion

For the reasons above, I request that the response to this request be reviewed and that the application of sections 29(1)(a), 29(1)(d) and 30(b)(i) be reconsidered.

I would also appreciate confirmation that the searches undertaken identified all relevant information within the scope of the request.

Having completed the review, I have concluded that the original response should be partially upheld, in that certain exemptions were applied more broadly than necessary. I have therefore released additional information in the attached revised Annex.

However, I have also concluded that some of the exemptions relied upon in the original response continue to apply to limited parts of the information. These are set out below.

During the review I carried out a fresh search, re‑examined the information in scope, and reassessed the application of each exemption. As a result additional material has been released:

• Communications relating to parliamentary scheduling, debate timings, Bureau arrangements, and routine handling matters have now been disclosed.
• Material previously withheld under section 29(1)(a) and 30(b)(i) has been released where it concerned administrative coordination, parliamentary timetabling, or correspondence that does not set out substantive policy development or free and frank advice.

Section 38 redactions have been applied only to junior civil servants and parliamentary staff, in line with standard practice. The names of Ministers, MSPs, senior civil servants and Special Advisers remain  unredacted.

You asked whether all email threads and attachments had been provided, and how many documents had been withheld or redacted. All unique email chains identified as being within scope have been released. Where the same email appeared multiple times within later chains, I have sought to remove these duplicates to avoid  repetition. No email chains have been withheld in full.

During the review I noted that there is reference to the early draft Bill, attachments that did not accompany the correspondence by the time it reached the Minister or his Private Office. These attachments ‘fell off’ earlier in the chain as the correspondence moved between offices. In relation to the Criminal Justice Committee’s Stage 1 report, although referred to in the correspondence, this document was already publicly available at the time of handling and therefore is considered to fall under section 25(1) of FOISA (information otherwise accessible). It may be found here: Stage 1 Report on the Prostitution (Offences and Support) (Scotland) Bill | Scottish Parliament. Therefore, under section 25(1) of FOISA, we do not have to give you information which is already reasonably accessible to you. If, however, you do not have internet access to obtain this information from the website, please contact me again and I will send you a paper copy.

Section 29(1)(a) – Formulation or development of government policy

Some information continues to be withheld because it contains internal briefing, substantive analysis, or policy consideration relating to the Scottish Government’s position on the Prostitution (Offences and Support) Bill. While the parliamentary passage of that Bill has now concluded, the wider policy area remains live and sensitive, and the Government’s position on aspects of the policy may continue to evolve. Disclosure of the withheld material would risk inhibiting officials and Ministers from engaging in candid discussions on related issues, to the detriment of future policy development. On balance, I consider that the public interest in maintaining a protected space for the development of policy outweighs the public interest in releasing this information. 

Section 29(1)(d) – Operation of a Ministerial Private Office

This exemption is applied only where release would prejudice the effective operation of private offices. The remaining redactions reflect non‑substantive administrative detail which does not contribute to public understanding of the Government’s handling of the Bill or policy, but whose disclosure would prejudice the effective operation of private offices. There is a limited public interest in operational minutiae of private office functioning, and I consider that the public interest in maintaining this exemption outweighs the interest in disclosure.

Section 30(b)(i) – Free and frank provision of advice

A small amount of material remains withheld under this exemption where it contains internal candid Scottish Ministers, advice, options, or commentary provided by officials to Ministers, or between officials advising on the Government’s response to the Bill and policy. Disclosure would, cause substantial inhibition to the free and frank provision of advice in future, particularly in sensitive or time‑pressured parliamentary circumstances. This would not be in the public interest. I accept that there is a public interest in transparency around the handling of a Member’s Bill. However, on balance, there is a greater public interest in ensuring officials and Ministers can exchange robust advice without undue concern over future disclosure.

Section 38(1)(b) – Personal data of third parties

Redactions have been applied to:

• names and contact details of junior civil servants,
• parliamentary clerks and staff below senior management,
• personal mobile numbers, direct emails, and signatures.

These individuals do not have public‑facing roles and have a reasonable expectation of privacy. 

Disclosure would breach data protection principles. There is no public interest in releasing this information.

I therefore uphold the decision to apply exemptions in some areas. However, I have released additional information which should have been provided originally, and I apologise that this was not included in the initial response.

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 202600510164 - Information released - Annex 1

File type

PDF

File size

840.1 kB