Stewart Milne Group housebuilders, greyhound ban, holiday homes council tax, alcohol levy and Middle East Eye interview: FOI release

Information requested

1. All correspondence received and sent about Stewart Milne Group housebuilders, including internally, briefings and minutes from any meetings about the company, from between November 1 2023 and the date of this FOI.

2. All briefings and analysis produced by or for the Scottish Government about the ban on greyhound racing, between December 1 2023 and the date of this FOI.

- Can you also include any correspondence received and sent by the government about this topic, including internally?

3. All correspondence with Ross Greer, including minutes from meetings with him, regarding increasing council tax on holiday homes and additional levy on big retailers selling alcohol, from the last 12 months?

4. All correspondence held by the Scottish Government, including set up correspondence, about Humza Yousaf's interview with Middle East Eye from February 2024, including briefings, internal correspondence and communications, from between October 1 2023 and the date of this FOI?

Response

Question 1

While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance the costs of locating, retrieving and providing the information requested would exceed the upper cost limit of £600.

Upon scoping, it has been determined that the request would encompass a wide range of varied policy areas who have indicated >7000 documents and communications which would require considerationand potentially redaction prior to release, to respond to the request fully.

Under section 12 of FOISA public authorities are not required to comply with a request for information if the authority estimates that the cost of complying would exceed the upper cost limit, which is currently set at £600 by Regulations made under section 12.

You may, however, wish to consider reducing the scope of your request in order that the costs can be brought below £600.

You may also find it helpful to look at the Scottish Information Commissioner’s ‘Tips for requesting information under FOI and the EIRs’ on his website at: https://www.itspublicknowledge.info/how-do-iask.

Question 2

As the information you have requested in question 2 is considered to be ‘environmental information’ for the purposes of the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (EIRs), we are required to deal with your request under those Regulations. We are applying the exemption at section 39(2) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA), so that we do not also have to deal with your request in question 2 under FOISA.

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, because there is no public interest in dealing with the same request under two different regimes. This is essentially a technical point and has no material effect on the outcome of your request.

I enclose some of the information you have 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 the following exemption(s) under the EIRs apply:

• Regulation 10(4)(e) (internal communications) applies to some of the information you have requested because it is internal legal advice and disclosure would breach legal professional privilege. This exception 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 exception. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exception. 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, 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.
• Regulation 10(4)(e) (internal communications) applies to some of the information you have requested because it is internal communication between Scottish Government Ministers and officials. This exception 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 exception. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exception. We recognise that there is some public interest in release 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 greyhound racing will be disclosed in the near future, when it may undermine or constrain the Government’s view on that issue while it is still under discussion.
• An exception under regulation 11(2) of the EIRs (personal information) applies to some of the information requested because it is personal data of a third party 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 exception 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 exception.

Some of the information in some of the documents is not considered to be within scope of your request and has been redacted.

Question 3

I enclose some of the information you have 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 section(s) 38(1)(b) (personal data of a third party), s.29(1)(a) (policy formulation), and s.30(b)(ii) (free and frank exchange of views) of FOISA applies to that information. The reasons why those exemptions apply are explained below.

An exemption under section 38(1)(b) (personal data of a third party) of FOISA applies to some of the information you have requested, as disclosure 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 2 018. The Scottish Government has a policy of not disclosing the personal data of officials who are not senior civil servants. This exemption means that the names and contact details of officials have been redacted. 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.

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 exploring the reintroduction of a public health supplement. 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-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 exploring the reintroduction of a public health supplement 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.

An exemption under section 30(b)(ii) (free and frank exchange of views) applies to some of the information requested. The exemption applies because disclosure would, or would be likely to, inhibit substantially the free and frank exchange of views for the purpose of deliberation. The exemptions recognise the need for Ministers to have a private space within which to discuss issues and options with external stakeholders before the Scottish Government reaches a settled public view. Disclosing the content of free and frank advice on a public health supplement will substantially inhibit the provision of such advice in the future, particularly because these discussions are still ongoing and decisions have not been taken. Disclosing the content of discussions with other political parties on a public health supplement will substantially inhibit such discussions in the future, because these stakeholders will be reluctant to provide their views fully and frankly if they believe that those views are likely to be made public, particularly while these discussions are still ongoing and decisions have not been taken.

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 communicate with appropriate external stakeholders as part of the process of exploring and refining the Government’s policy position on a public health supplement until the Government as a whole can adopt a decision that is sound and likely to be effective. This private space is essential to enable all options to be properly considered, so that good policy decisions can be taken based on fully informed advice and evidence, such as that provided by other political parties. Premature disclosure is likely to undermine the full and frank discussion of issues between the Scottish Government and these stakeholders, which in turn will undermine the quality of the policy making process, which would not be in the public interest. There is also an important public interest in avoiding the loss of stakeholder confidence in cases where they thought they were providing comments in confidence, which would be inevitable if an individual’s contribution was released against their wishes.

Some of the information in some of the documents is not considered to be within scope of your request, as it is about a different topic, and has been redacted.

Question 4

I enclose some of the information you have 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 under sections s30(b)(i) Free and Frank provision of advice and s38 (1)(b) Personal data apply to that information. The reason for the use of those exemptions is set out at Annex A.

An exemption under section 30(b)(i) (Free and Frank provision of advice) applies to some of the information you have requested because it relates to civil servants’ drafting of advice to ministers. 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.

An exemption under section 38(1)(b) (personal data of a third party) of FOISA applies to some of the information you have requested because correspondence contains the personal data of civil servants below Senior Civil Service level, which is exempt from release. 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.

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.

FOI 202400402718 - Information Released - Annex

File type

74 page PDF

File size

4.8 MB