EIR/202500468577 Review of 202500459262 · FOI/EIR · partially withheld
Scottish Government meetings with SSE: EIR Review
Information requested
Original request: 202500459262
Please provide me with any documentation relevant to the following meetings, including but not limited to:
a list of attendees and their affiliations what topics were discussed any briefings or other information provided to attendees or officials minutes, and any agreed actions
On 12/7/24, Special Adviser Davie Hutchinson met with SSE in St. Andrews House.
Source: https://www.lobbying.scot/SPS/InformationReturn/SearchInformationReturnDetail/56532
On 1/8/24, Special Adviser Colin McAllister met with SSE via Video Conference.
Source: https://www.lobbying.scot/SPS/InformationReturn/SearchInformationReturnDetail/56533
On 5/8/24, First Minister John Swinney met with SSE in St Andrews House.
Source: https://www.lobbying.scot/SPS/InformationReturn/SearchInformationReturnDetail/56534
On 30/8/24 Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes met with SSE at the Doubletree Hotel in Edinburgh
Source: https://www.lobbying.scot/SPS/InformationReturn/SearchInformationReturnDetail/56535
On 20/9/24 First Minister John Swinney met with SSE at Tummel Bridge Power Station
Source: https://www.lobbying.scot/SPS/InformationReturn/SearchInformationReturnDetail/56551
Response
I have now completed my review of our response to your request under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) for:
“any documentation relevant to the following meetings, including but not limited to:
a list of attendees and their affiliations what topics were discussed any briefings or other information provided to attendees or officials minutes, and any agreed actions
On 12/7/24, Special Adviser Davie Hutchinson met with SSE in St. Andrews House.
Source: https://www.lobbying.scot/SPS/InformationReturn/SearchInformationReturnDetail/56532
On 1/8/24, Special Adviser Colin McAllister met with SSE via Video Conference.
Source: https://www.lobbying.scot/SPS/InformationReturn/SearchInformationReturnDetail/56533
On 5/8/24, First Minister John Swinney met with SSE in St Andrews House.
Source: https://www.lobbying.scot/SPS/InformationReturn/SearchInformationReturnDetail/56534
On 30/8/24, Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes met with SSE at the Doubletree Hotel in Edinburgh
Source: https://www.lobbying.scot/SPS/InformationReturn/SearchInformationReturnDetail/56535
On 20/9/24 First Minister John Swinney met with SSE at Tummel Bridge Power Station
Source: https://www.lobbying.scot/SPS/InformationReturn/SearchInformationReturnDetail/56551
I have also taken consideration of your specific requests to check the meeting information, particularly for the correct date of 1st August rather than 8th August, and also toreview the exemptions applied to the information released in Annex A under FOISA.
Outcome of Review
I have concluded that a different decision should be substituted.
The request was incorrectly dealt with under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) and should instead be dealt with under the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (the EIRs).
As the information you have requested is ‘environmental information’ for the purposes of the EIRs, we are required to deal with your request under those Regulations. We are applying the exemption at section 39(2) of FOISA, so that we do not also have to deal with your request 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.
In addition, upon releasing the information, the FOI response incorrectly referred to a meeting of 8th August instead of the correct date of 1st August 2024. I can confirm that despite this mistake, the correct searches for information were conducted and all relevant information identified.
I have reviewed the information that was initially withheld under FOISA exemptions. I have concluded that some of that information should be disclosed, and a copy of that information is attached.
However, I have further concluded that some information should remain withheld from that supplied to you because exceptions under regulations 10(4)(e) (internal communications) and 11(2) (personal data) of the EIRs apply to that information.
The reasons why those exceptions apply are set out in Annex A of this letter.
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
Source: https://www.lobbying.scot/SPS/InformationReturn/SearchInformationReturnDetail/56534 On 30/8/24, Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes met with SSE at the Doubletree Hotel in Edinburgh Source: https://www.lobbying.scot/SPS/InformationReturn/SearchInformationReturnDetail/56535 On 20/9/24 First Minister John Swinney met with SSE at Tummel Bridge Power Station Source: https://www.lobbying.scot/SPS/InformationReturn/SearchInformationReturnDetail/56551 I have also taken consideration of your specific requests to check the meeting information, particularly for the correct date of 1st August rather than 8th August, and also toreview the exemptions applied to the information released in Annex A under FOISA. We are applying the exemption at section 39(2) of FOISA, so that we do not also have to deal with your request 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.