· FOI · partially withheld
Meeting between First Minister and INEOS: FOI review
Information requested
A copy of any pre-meeting briefing, all people in attendance, agenda for meeting, note or minute taken and/or action points and any post meeting briefing in relation to the meeting between First Minister Nicola Sturgeon and Jim Ratcliff (INEOS) that took place on the 19th October 2016.
Response
I have concluded that the original response should be confirmed, with modification.
The original response directed to you to information that had previously been published on the Scottish Government website. Some of the information on our website had been redacted. The reason for that redaction was not clearly explained in our response of 25 May 2017. Having considered all relevant information, I am of the view that some of the information should be withheld under section 33(1)(b) of FOISA, since disclosure would (or would be likely to) prejudice substantially the commercial interests of any person or organisation. You have highlighted in your request for a review that the information redacted may be in the public interest. On balance, the public interest in withholding some of the information outweighs the information in disclosing the information.
However, I have identified information that was redacted from the original response and to which no relevant exemption applies, for example information in relation to planning applications which is already in the public domain. I attach a modified version of the information released.
I have highlighted the omission of reasons in the original response to the official responsible for responding to your original request. I have asked that steps are taken to ensure that reasoning is more comprehensive in future cases.
Detected exemption language
Having considered all relevant information, I am of the view that some of the information should be withheld under section 33(1)(b) of FOISA, since disclosure would (or would be likely to) prejudice substantially the commercial interests of any person or organisation. However, I have identified information that was redacted from the original response and to which no relevant exemption applies, for example information in relation to planning applications which is already in the public domain.