Correspondence on the alcohol ban on ScotRail trains: FOI release

Information requested

1. Please send me correspondence with the Scotrail on the alcohol ban on ScotRail trains.
2. Please also send me the number antisocial behaviour incidents recorded each month since January 2018.

Response

For your point 1) above - the information you have requested is contained in an Annex A attached to this letter.

For your point 2) above:

This information is published by the British Transport Police (BTP) who is responsible for the enforcement of the law on the Scottish rail network.

You can access the statistics that BTP publishes via the following link:-

Stats and data | British Transport Police (btp.police.uk)

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 listed, then please contact me again and I will send you paper copies.

You will see that some information has been redacted against the following FOISA exemptions:-

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

An exemption under section 30(b)(ii) of FOISA (substantial inhibition to 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. This exemption recognises the need for officials and / or members of a third party to have a private space within which to provide free and frank views amongst each other, before the Scottish Government and a third party reaches a settled public view.

isclosing the content of free and frank exchange of views regarding the ban of alcohol on trains would inhibit the exchange of views in future between officials and third party representatives in relation to operational matters of running Scotland’s railway.

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 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 exchange full and frank views, as part of the process of exploring and refining the Government’s and third party’s decision making process. This private thinking space is essential to enable all options to be properly considered, based on the best available advice, so that sound operational decisions can be taken. Disclosure is likely to undermine the full and frank discussion of issues between Government officials, third party representatives, which in turn will undermine the quality of the decision making process, which would not be in the public interest.

Section 30(b)(i) - Substantial inhibition to free and frank exchange of advice

An exemption under section 30(b)(i) of FOISA (substantial inhibition to free and frank exchange 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 exchange of advice. This exemption recognises the need for officials and / or a member of a third party to have a private space within which to provide free and frank advice amongst each other, before the Scottish Government and a third party reach a settled public view.

Disclosing the content of free and frank exchange of advice regarding the ban of alcohol on trains would inhibit the exchange of advice in the future between officials and third party representatives in relation to operational matters of running Scotland’s railway.

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 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 exchange full and frank advice, as part of the process of exploring and refining the Government’s and third party’s decision making process. This private thinking space is essential to enable all options to be properly considered, based on the best available advice, so that sound operational decisions can be taken. Disclosure is likely to undermine the full and frank discussion of issues between Government officials, third party representatives, which in turn will undermine the quality of the decision making process, which would not be in the public interest.

Section 29(1)(c) – Law Officers’ advice

An exemption under section 29(1)(c) of FOISA (Law Officers’ advice) applies to some of the information requested because it relates to the provision of advice by the Law Officers.

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 maintaining the Law Officer Convention (reflected in the Scottish Ministerial Code), which requires that advice provided by the Law Officers should not be divulged except in exceptional circumstances and with the prior consent of the Law Officers. Parliament has also given particular statutory protection to the content of Law Officer advice or requests for their advice to ensure that the government is able to obtain frank and full legal advice in confidence from them (see for example the HM Treasury and the Information Commissioner case, 21 July 2009).

Section 38 (1) (b) – Third party data

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, i.e. names and contact details of individuals and companies, 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.

The information that has been redacted has been clearly marked with the relevant exemption i.e. Section 30 (b)(ii).

The remaining information that has been redacted is that which falls into the exemption of section 38 (1) (b) – third party data.

About FOI

The Scottish Government is committed to publishing all information released in response to Freedom of Information requests. View all FOI responses at http://www.gov.scot/foi-responses.

Annex A - 202200313595

File type

10 page PDF

File size

440.2 kB