Criminalisation of the purchase of sex in Scotland information: FOI release

Information requested

You asked for “information concerning the appointment of Fiona Taylor QPM as Chair of the Independent Commission on the Criminalisation of the Purchase of Sex in Scotland, announced to the Criminal Justice Committee on 11 March 2026”. Specifically, you asked for:

1. Records relating to the decision to appoint Fiona Taylor;

2. Records showing what Fiona Taylor was told about the commission’s purpose, scope and expected work;

3. Records about the timing of publication of the terms of reference; and

4. Communications and meetings.

Response

I enclose a copy of most of the information you requested. While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance we are unable to provide some of the information you have requested because exemptions under the following sections of FOISA apply to that information:

• s.29(1)(a) - policy formulation
• s.30(b)(i) - free and frank provision of advice
• s.30(b)(ii) - free and frank exchange of views
• s.30 (c) - otherwise prejudice effective conduct of public affairs
• s.36(1) - legal advice
• s.38(1)(b) - personal information

I have indicated in square brackets within the material enclosed, where information has been redacted because of one of these exemptions. The reasons why those exemptions apply are explained in the Annex to this letter.

Annex

s.29(1)(a) - policy formulation

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 policy of the Scottish Government’s approach to legislation relating to prostitution and the process of finalising the terms of reference of the Independent Commission on the Criminalisation of the Purchase of Sex in Scotland. I have indicated in square brackets within the material released, where information has been redacted because of this exemption.

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 high quality policy and decision-aking, and in the properly considered implementation and development of policies and decisions including the final terms of reference of the Commission. 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 will be disclosed in the near future, when it may undermine or constrain the Government’s final position.

s.30(b)(i) – free and frank provision of advice

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 establishment of the Independent Commission on the Criminalisation of the Purchase of Sex in Scotland will substantially inhibit the provision of such advice in the future, particularly because the Commission is not yet fully operational. I have indicated in square brackets within the material released, where information has been redacted because of this exemption.

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 a private space within which officials can provide full and frank advice to Ministers, as part of the process of establishing the Commission. This private thinking space is essential to enable all options to be properly considered, based on the best available advice. 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 and decision making process, which would not be in the public interest.

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

An exemption under section 30(b)(ii) of FOISA (free and frank exchange of views) applies to some 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 these discussions will substantially inhibit such discussions in the future. I have indicated in square brackets within the material released, where information has been redacted because of this exemption.

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 approach to the establishment of the Commission. This private space is essential to enable all options to be properly considered. 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.

Section 30(c) – substantial prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs

An exemption under section 30(c) of FOISA (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) applies to some of the information requested. Disclosing this information would substantially prejudice our ability to provide advice and options to Ministers on Ministerial appointments. This would constitute substantial prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs in terms of the exemption.

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. However, there is a greater public interest in protecting the process of providing advice on Ministerial appointments and ensuring that the Scottish Government is able conduct this aspect of its business effectively.

Section 36(1) – legal advice

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.

I have indicated in square brackets within the material released, where information has been redacted because of this exemption.

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 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.

s.38(1)(b) - personal information

An exemption under section 38(1)(b) of FOISA (personal information) applies to some of the information requested because it is personal data of a third party, ie names and contact details of individuals, 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. I have indicated in square brackets within the material.

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 202600510439 - Information Released - Documents

File type

PDF

File size

859.9 kB