202300342360 · FOI · partially withheld
Meetings attended by Transport Minister Jenny Gilruth that discussed the National Conversation into the future of rail services: FOI release
Information requested
A list of meetings attended by the Transport Minister Jenny Gilruth that discussed the National Conversation into the future of rail services. Other details being sought include:
Pre-meeting briefings Agendas of any meetings Venue Minutes or notes of any meetings Any post meeting action points.
Response
Please see below list of meetings attended by the minister where National Rail Conversation was discussed:
12/05/2022 Introductory Meeting – Rozanne Foyer 17/08/2022 Rail Day Transport Scotland 04/10/2022 Meeting with STUC representatives 27/10/2022 Meeting with Rail officials 08/11/2022 Transport Scotland - staff engagement meeting 07/12/2022 Monthly meeting with ScotRail 11/01/2023 Meeting with representatives of various trade unions
All the supporting documentation related to the above meetings, which falls into the scope of your request can be found in the Annex attached to this letter.
You will see that some information has been redacted against the following FOISA exemptions:-
Section 30(b)(ii) - Substantial inhibition to free and frank exchange of views
An exemption under section 30(b)(ii) of FOISA (substantial inhibition to free and frank exchange of views) applies to some of the information requested. 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 to provide free and frank views amongst each other, before the Scottish Government reaches a settled public view.
Disclosing the content of free and frank exchange of views regarding the development of National Rail Conversation (NRC) would inhibit the exchange of views in future between officials, in relation to matters concerned with running Scotland’s railway.
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 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 allowing a private space within which officials can exchange full and frank views, as part of the process of exploring and refining the Government’s decision making process. This private thinking space is essential to enable all options to be properly considered, based on the best available advice, so that sound decisions can be taken.
Disclosure is likely to undermine the full and frank discussion of issues between Government officials, which in turn will undermine the quality of the decision making process, which would not be in the public interest.
Section 30(b)(i) - Substantial inhibition to free and frank exchange of advice
An exemption under section 30(b)(ii) of FOISA (substantial inhibition to free and frank exchange of advice) applies to some of the information requested. This exemption applies because disclosure would, or would be likely to, inhibit substantially the free and frank exchange of advice. This exemption recognises the need for officials to have a private space within which to provide free and frank advice amongst each other, before the Scottish Government reaches a settled public view.
Disclosing the content of free and frank exchange of advice regarding the development of National Rail Conversation (NRC) would inhibit the exchange of advice in future between officials, in relation to matters concerned with running Scotland’s railway.
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 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 allowing a private space within which officials can exchange full and frank advice, as part of the process of exploring and refining the Government’s decision making process. This private space is essential to enable all options to be properly considered, based on the best available advice, so that sound decisions can be taken.
Disclosure is likely to undermine the full and frank discussion of issues between Government officials, which in turn will undermine the quality of the decision making process, which would not be in the public interest.
Section 29(1)(a) - Formulation or development of government policy
An exemption under section 29(1)(a) - formulation or development of government policy of FOISA applies to some of the information you have requested. This exemption applies because the information is linked to the development of government policy.
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 achieving high quality policy decisions.
This can only be achieved by ensuring that Ministers and officials have the safe space to consider implementation and development of policies, to fully understand their possible implications. Their candour in doing so would be affected, if that safe space was not available, which in turn will undermine the quality of the future decision making process, which would not be in the public interest.
Section 3(1)(b) – Third party and personal data
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, i.e. names and contact details of individuals and companies, 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.
The information that has been redacted has been clearly marked with the relevant exemption, i.e. Section 30(b)(ii).
The remaining information that has been redacted is that which falls into the exemption of section 38(1)(b) – third party data.
About FOI
The Scottish Government is committed to publishing all information released in response to Freedom of Information requests. View all FOI responses at http://www.gov.scot/foi-responses.
Detected exemption language
You will see that some information has been redacted against the following FOISA exemptions:- Section 30(b)(ii) - Substantial inhibition to free and frank exchange of views An exemption under section 30(b)(ii) of FOISA (substantial inhibition to free and frank exchange of views) applies to some of the information requested. 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 to provide free and frank views amongst each other, before the Scottish Government reaches a settled public view. 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.