FOI/202500486016 · FOI · partially withheld
Communications regarding members of the Scottish Parliament: FOI release
Information requested
1) Any communications - including texts, WhatsApps, emails, Teams messages, or any other sort of written communications - from Wednesday September 17 to Wednesday September 24 on the topic of Jamie Hepburn.
2) Any communications - including texts, WhatsApps, emails, Teams messages, or any other sort of written communications - from Wednesday September 17 to Wednesday September 24 which mentions Douglas Ross.
Response
Material considered relevant to your request has been identified and is set out in the Annex to this letter. However, in this instance we are unable to provide some of the information, which has been redacted, because an exemption under section 30(b)(ii) (the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation) or section 30(b)(i) (free and frank provision of advice) applies to it. That reflects the need to avoid compromising officials’ ability to offer advice to Ministers discussion. 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.
Some of the information is also exempt under section 38(1)(b) (personal data) and therefore also redacted.
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.
Detected exemption language
However, in this instance we are unable to provide some of the information, which has been redacted, because an exemption under section 30(b)(ii) (the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation) or section 30(b)(i) (free and frank provision of advice) applies to it. 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. Some of the information is also exempt under section 38(1)(b) (personal data) and therefore also redacted.