Correspondence on the death of former First Minister Alex Salmond: FOI release

Information requested

1. A copy of all emails of staff members of the First Minister’s office that refer to the news of Alex Salmond’s death.

The time range of this request is Saturday 12th October to Monday 14th October.

Staff members refers to all workers recognised as working directly for the First Minister.

All emails means emails sent and received by each worker.

2. A copy of any briefing material that was prepared and sent to John Swinney for him to use to speak about Alex Salmond.

The time range for this request is Saturday 12th October to Monday 14th October.

3. If the First Minister or his staff have a phone that was used in the last couple of days (Saturday 12th October to Monday today) then provide any phone messages that refer to the new of the death of Alex Salmond.

If you can’t give me messages or you can’t search messages on those days because they’ve been deleted then let me know.

Response

The response to each of your questions is detailed below:

1. The information you have asked for is attached in Annex A. 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 38(1)(b) - personal data, section 30(b)(i) -free and frank provision of advice, section 30(b)(ii) - free and frank exchange of views, section 28(1) - relations within the UK and section 39(1) - health and safety, of FOISA applies to that information. The reasons why these exemptions apply are explained below.

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 civil servants, member of the public etc., 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.

An exemption under section 30(b)(i) of FOISA (free and frank provision of advice) applies to the information requested. The information withheld from the response, includes correspondence between officials which constitutes advice to Ministers. 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 formation of Government will substantially inhibit the provision of such advice in the future. 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 disclosing information on the formation of Government decisions as part of open government and transparency. However, this is outweighed by the public interest in protecting free and frank exchange of advice that enables Ministers and officials to conduct business and come to decisions, releasing advice provided would disrupt this process.

An exemption under section 30(b)(ii) of FOISA (free and frank exchange of views) applies to the information requested. The information withheld from the response, includes correspondence between officials which constitutes an exchange of views necessary to reach a decision. 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 to have a private space within which views can be exchanged in order to reach a decision or produce advice to Ministers. Disclosing the content of free and frank exchange of views on the formation of Government policy will substantially inhibit the ability to exchange these views freely in the future.

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 disclosing information on the formation of Government decisions as part of open government and transparency. However, this is outweighed by the public interest in protecting free and frank exchange of views that enables officials to conduct business and come to decisions, releasing the exchange of views would disrupt this process.

An exemption under section 28(1) of FOISA (relations within the UK) applies to some of the information requested. This exemption applies because disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice substantially relations between the Scottish Government and the UK Government. It is essential for the effective administration of the UK as a whole that there should be regular, and often private, communications between the Scottish Government, the UK Government and the other devolved administrations. The release of these communications about the repatriation of Mr Salmond will mean that the UK Government is likely to be more reluctant to share such information with the Scottish Government in future, which would reduce both the frequency and openness of communications between the Scottish Government and other UK administrations.

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 good relations between the Scottish Government and the UK Government, and in protecting the free exchange of information between the administrations to ensure that we keep each other fully and regularly informed about matters of mutual interest. There is no public interest in disclosing information when that will damage relationships and disrupt future communications.

An exemption under section 39(1) of FOISA (health and safety) applies to some of the information requested because disclosure would, or would be likely to, endanger the physical or mental health or safety of an individual. 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 protecting the personal safety of individuals.

2. The Scottish Government does not have the information you have asked for because no briefing material for Mr Swinney to speak about Alex Salmond was prepared or sent to John Swinney. This is a formal notice under section 17(1) of FOISA that the Scottish Government does not have the information you have requested.

3. The information you have asked for is attached in Annex B. 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 sections 38(1)(b) - personal data and section 39(1) - health and safety, of FOISA applies to that information. The reasons why these exemptions apply are explained below.

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 civil servants, member of the public etc., 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.

An exemption under section 39(1) of FOISA (health and safety) applies to some of the information requested because disclosure would, or would be likely to, endanger the physical or mental health or safety of an individual. 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 protecting the personal safety of individuals.

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 202400436164 - Information Released - Annex A and B

File type

PDF

File size

739.0 kB