EIR/202600520368 Review of 202600513699 · FOI/EIR · partially withheld
Scottish Zero Emission Bus Challenge Fund (ScotZEB3) information: EIR Review
Information requested
Original request 202600513699
1. Copies of the applicant eligibility and application scoring criteria and/or evaluation matrices, and all guidance and other documentation referred to and applied by the decision maker(s) when assessing and determining:
a. the eligibility of the applicants; b. the relative merits and/or scores of applications submitted by the applicants; and c. the amounts awarded to successful applicants of ScotZEB3.
2. The total number of applications that were received in respect of ScotZEB3.
3. The total number of applicants who met the eligibility criteria to be considered for a grant under ScotZEB3.
4. The number of eligible applicants who received a grant equivalent to the full amount sought in their application.
5. The number of eligible applicants who received a grant equivalent to less than the full amount sought in their application.
6. The number of eligible applicants who were refused a grant.
7. A copy of each of the applications (and supporting information and documentation, if any) submitted which were awarded any grant under ScotZEB3.
8. All reports, documents, notes and other communications (including internal decision reports, minutes of meetings, records of any moderation or panel discussions, scoring sheets and any like documents) which provide or set out comment, analysis, scores and / or conclusions in respect of the applications that were awarded grants under ScotZEB3 and in respect of our client’s application.
9. All conflict-of-interest declarations made by those evaluating the applications for grants under ScotZEB3.
Response
In your letter dated 5 June, you requested a review of the EIR response in relation to questions 1,7 and 8, on the basis that you consider the exceptions applied to redact or withhold information have been misapplied or applied in an overly stringent manner.
I have concluded that the original decision should be confirmed with modifications.
In a small number of instances, exceptions had been applied to information that is already in the public domain. Where this is the case, that information is now being released or a link to the information has been provided.
Further detail is provided below, structured against each part of your original request. I would also like to apologise that the application of exceptions was not clearly signposted in the original response or within the documents provided. This has been addressed, and the relevant team has been reminded of the importance of clearly identifying where information is being withheld and under which exception.
The documents have now been re-issued, showing the exceptions applied at review. For clarity, we have provided a full list of documents identified as in scope of your request, and the exceptions applied either in part, or fully to each document, in the ‘File Release List’.
Please also note that we have retitled the original release documents and the numbering will not match the original release version.
Question 1:
Request:
Copies of the applicant eligibility and application scoring criteria and/or evaluation matrices, and all guidance and other documentation referred to and applied by the decision maker(s) when assessing and determining:
a. the eligibility of the applicants;
b. the relative merits and/or scores of applications submitted by the applicants; and
c. the amounts awarded to successful applicants of ScotZEB3.
Original response (1 May):
“Some of the information that you have requested is enclosed.”
One document was provided in response to your request, titled “2. REDACTED”, which relates to internal evaluation and scoring guidance. This document is also relevant to your request under Question 8.
Review outcome:
In the original response, Regulations 11(2) (personal data), 10(5)(e) (confidentiality of commercial information), 10(5)(f) (third party interests) and 10(4)(e) (internal communications) of the EIRs were applied to some of the requested information.
Regulation 11 - Personal data
The review has concluded that 11(2) continues to apply to some of the information contained within document “2. REDACTED”. This exception is subject to the public interest test. We find in this case, that public interest in making the personal data available is outweighed by the public interest in not making it available as it relates to the personal data of a third party.
Regulation 10(5)(e) - Confidentiality of commercial or industrial information
This review also considered that Regulations 10(5)(e) applies to some of the information relating to evaluation scoresheets. This exception is subject to the ‘public interest test’. Having reconsidered all the circumstances of the case, we are satisfied with the original decision that the public interest in maintaining these exceptions outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. We have therefore upheld the application of this exception and the associated public interest test from the original response, as set out below. The original response applied this exception to the evaluation scoresheets in their entirety. However, following the review, the evaluation scoresheets are being released, with the relevant exemptions applied.
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 because disclosure would promote transparency and accountability in relation to the assessment of applications and the allocation of public funds and would help the public understand how decisions were reached. However, this is outweighed by the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of commercially sensitive information provided by applicants. Disclosure would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of those businesses by revealing information such as financial details, business strategies and other sensitive material, and would be likely to discourage full and open engagement with future funding opportunities. There is a strong public interest in ensuring that public authorities can administer live funding schemes effectively and that applicants are able to provide information in confidence to support robust funding decisions.
This includes where such information is reflected in evaluation scoresheets as part of the decisionmaking process.
However, the review has concluded that Regulation 10(5)(e) does not apply to some of the information in “2. REDACTED”, where that information relates to internal scoring guidance and does not contain commercially sensitive material. That information is therefore being re-released, with applicable exceptions identified.
Regulation 10(5)(f) – Third party interests
This review has concluded that Regulations 10(5)(f) does not apply to the information relating to contained in the evaluation scoresheets, as the information relates to assessor comments, rather than information provided by third parties.
Regulation 10(4)(e) - Internal Communications
The review has also concluded that Regulation 10(4)(e) does not apply to some of the information requested in “2. REDACTED”, as this was information exchanged between Transport Scotland and an external delivery partner as part of the procurement process, and is not in this context, an internal communication.
Question 7
Request:
A copy of each of the applications (and supporting information and documentation, if any) submitted which were awarded any grant under ScotZEB3.
Original response (1 May):
“An Annex providing high‑level summaries of successful ScotZEB Phase 3 projects is enclosed.
Detailed financial, contractual and commercially sensitive information has been withheld where appropriate under regulation 10(5)(e), where disclosure would be likely to prejudice substantially the commercial interests of applicants.”
One document was provided in response to your request, titled “EIR - Annex - Successful Project Applications – Summaries".
Review outcome:
Following the review, a summary of application documents and the exemptions applied has been released, titled “Redacted Applications Log’.
In the original response, Regulations 10(5)(e) (confidentiality of commercial information), 10(5)(f) (third party interests) and 11(2) (personal data) of the EIRs were applied to some of the requested information.
Regulation 10(5)(e) - Confidentiality of commercial or industrial information and Regulation
10(5)(f) – Third party interests
The review has concluded that 10(5)(e) and 10(5)(f) continue to apply to some of the information requested. We consider that the provision of a separate summary of headline information from the application process, as provided in the original response, represents an appropriate level of disclosure in relation to applicant applications. However, this review has concluded that there is some information where the exemptions do not apply because they are already in the public domain, which are listed below.
Applicants’ PSV licenses. Available here: Find lorry or bus operators - GOV.UK
Fair work – Evidence. Available here: Accredited Living Wage Employers | Living Wage Foundation
Case Study. Available here: First Charge: Powering up the UK’s clean transport logistics | First Bus UK News
Regulations 10(5)(e) and 10(5)(f) are subject to the ‘public interest test’. Having reconsidered all the circumstances of the case, we are satisfied with the original decision where the public interest in maintaining these exceptions outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. We have therefore upheld the application of these exceptions and the original outcomes of the associated public interest tests. For 10(5)(e), this is the same as set out in response to Question 1, while the original public interest test for 10(5)(f) is set out below:
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 because disclosure would promote transparency and accountability in relation to the assessment of applications and the allocation of public funds and would help the public understand how decisions were reached. However, this is outweighed by the public interest in protecting the legitimate interests of third parties who supplied the information voluntarily. Disclosure would be likely to prejudice the commercial interest of those third parties and would be likely to discourage third parties from providing full and candid supporting information in future schemes.
Regulation 11 - Personal data
The review has also concluded that the application of 11(2) applies to some of the information you have requested. This exception is subject to the public interest test. We find in this case, that public interest in making the personal data available is outweighed by the public interest in not making it available as it relates to the personal data of a third party.
Question 8
Request:
All reports, documents, notes and other communications (including internal decision reports, minutes of meetings, records of any moderation or panel discussions, scoring sheets and any like documents) which provide or set out comment, analysis, scores and / or conclusions in respect of the applications that were awarded grants under ScotZEB3 and in respect of our client’s application.
Original response (1 May):
“Some of the information that you have requested is enclosed.”
Three documents were provided in response to your request, titled:
“1. REDACTED”, which relates to meeting minutes of the moderation panel.
“3. REDACTED”, which relates to an email regarding applications received.
“4. REDACTED”, which is a submission to Ministers relating to the assessment of applications and final funding award recommendations.
Review outcome:
In the original response, Regulations 11(2) (personal data) ,10(4)(e) (internal communications),10(5)(e) (confidentiality of commercial information), 10(5)(f) (third party interests) and 10(5)(b) (justice and fair trial) of the EIRs were applied to some of the requested information.
Regulation 11 - Personal data
The review has concluded that regulation 11(2) continues to apply to some of the information contained within documents “1. REDACTED”, “3. REDACTED” and “4. REDACTED”.
This exception is subject to the public interest test. We find in these cases, that the public interest in making the personal data available is outweighed by the public interest in not making it available as it relates to the personal data of a third party.
Regulation 10(4)(e) - Internal Communications
This review considered regulation 10(4)(e) to apply to some of the information in “4. REDACTED”.
However, the review has found that the exception was applied more broadly than necessary. As such, this document is being re-released, with applicable exceptions identified. Regulation 10(4)(e) is subject to the ‘public interest test’ where the exemption has been upheld. Having reconsidered all the circumstances of the case, we are satisfied with the original decision where the public interest in maintaining these exceptions outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information, as set out below:
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 because there is public interest in transparency and accountability for the use of public funds and that disclosure would contribute to public understanding of the decision-making process. However, we consider that this is outweighed by the public interest in maintaining the integrity of subsidy assessment processes. The submission to Ministers forms part of internal deliberative processes, disclosure would inhibit free and frank advice.
However, the review concluded that 10(4)(e) does not apply to “1. REDACTED”, as the information was exchanged between an external delivery partner and Transport Scotland as part of the procurement process, and is not in this context, an internal communication.
Regulation 10(5)(e) - Confidentiality of commercial or industrial information
Where regulation 10(4)(e) did not apply in this instance, the review concluded that regulation 10(5)(e) did apply. The review considers that 10(5)(e) already applied to some of the other information in documents “1. REDACTED” , as this information contains confidential and commercially sensitive material arising from the application and procurement process. This, therefore, represents an expanded application of regulation 10(5)(e) in relation to document “1. REDACTED”.
Application of 10(5)(e) is subject to the public interest test. Having reconsidered all the circumstances of the case, we are satisfied with the original decision where the public interest in maintaining these exceptions outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. We have therefore upheld the application of these exceptions and the associated public interest tests, as set out in response to Question 1.
However, the review has also concluded that regulation 10(5)(e) does not apply to the information in “4. REDACTED” e.g., where that information has already been disclosed in the Annex referred to in response to Question 7. That information is therefore being re-released, with applicable exceptions identified.
Regulation 10(5)(f) – Third party interests
This review has concluded that 10(5)(f) does not apply to some information in “4. REDACTED”, as the information relates to officials’ assessment of applications. However, the review has concluded that this exemption does apply to some information in “1. REDACTED”, where that information was provided by an external procurement partner as part of a tendering and assessment process.
Application of 10(5)(f) is subject to the public interest test. Although the original response did not fully set out the public interest test in relation to this exception, the review has now considered this. On balance, we have found that the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exception. While disclosure would contribute to transparency, this is outweighed by the public interest in protecting the legitimate interests of third parties e.g., the external procurement partner, who provided information in confidence. Disclosure would be likely to prejudice their commercial interests and could discourage the provision of full, frank and candid advice in future processes.
Regulation 10(5)(b) - The course of justice
The review has concluded that regulation 10(5)(b) does not apply to document “4. REDACTED”. However, we consider that the relevant exception for this information is regulation 10(4)(e), given that the information relates to advice provided to Ministers as part of an internal deliberative process. This exception is subject to the public interest test, which is set out above.
Following the review, an additional document, titled ‘Document 20', has been released, although some information within this document has been withheld under Regulations 11(2) and 10(4)(e). Both are subject to the public interest test, which are the same as set out above.
You have also noted that you do not currently have sufficient information to understand how applications submitted under ScotZEB3 were assessed and the reasons why your client’s application was unsuccessful and others were successful. While the EIR process limits the extent of information that can be provided in response to this request, you can contact EST, the scheme administrators, in the first instance at ScotZEB@est.org.uk, who may be able to provide further feedback in answer to your queries.
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
Regulation 10(5)(e) - Confidentiality of commercial or industrial information This review also considered that Regulations 10(5)(e) applies to some of the information relating to evaluation scoresheets. However, following the review, the evaluation scoresheets are being released, with the relevant exemptions applied. However, the review has concluded that Regulation 10(5)(e) does not apply to some of the information in “2. Regulation 10(5)(f) – Third party interests This review has concluded that Regulations 10(5)(f) does not apply to the information relating to contained in the evaluation scoresheets, as the information relates to assessor comments, rather than information provided by third parties. Regulation 10(4)(e) - Internal Communications The review has also concluded that Regulation 10(4)(e) does not apply to some of the information requested in “2.