24-25/34

I refer to your request for information dated 5 September 2024 (FOI 24-25/34) in which you asked for information between October 2023 and May 2024 “related to logic /reasons” for the commissioning of a report by the Professional Standards Authority which we have handled under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act (FOISA).

With regards to your request, we have conducted a search for “emails, documents and potentially meeting minutes” between October 2023 and May 2024 for the “logic”, “reasons” and “rationale” of a review by the Professional Standards Authority. The relevant records include the following:

• Various email exchanges with the Professional Standards Authority regarding the review;
• A paper presented to the Professional Regulatory Assurance Committee on 5 December 2023;
• A paper presented to the Professional Regulatory Assurance Committee on 7 May2024;
• A draft internal staff One Note document dated 23 January2024 referring to the scope and reasons for the review.

By way of advice and assistance, you might be interested in a response we have previously provided related to the commissioning of the report by the PSA which is already available on our Disclosure Log and which may answer a portion of your request.

We have withheld the above records as they are exempt under section 30(b)(i)(ii) and section 30(c) of FOISA.

Where the records have been withheld under section 30(b)(i) and (ii) this has been done as disclosure of them is likely to inhibit substantially the free and frank provision of advice as well as the free and frank exchange of views for the purpose of deliberation.

There is clear public interest in the transparent operation of public authorities, and this is why we make our Fitness to Teach Rules, Threshold Policy and other information about our fitness to teach process publicly available.

Additionally, we have published information regarding the PSA review on our website to ensure transparency and awareness of the work that we are doing to review our Fitness to Teach Rules and process and the PSA report will be made publicly available. However, there is also a significant public interest in GTC Scotland being able to deliberate on the options available and the ways in which any such review will be carried out in order to improve the processes which support our fitness to teach function without the concern that such deliberations and exploration of options will be made public.

GTC Scotland needs to be able to have free and frank exchanges and reflect consideration of matters in a private space so that these matters can be articulated, developed, discussed and tested. We consider this is especially relevant given that our Committee meetings are held in private. Disclosure of these records would belikely to substantially inhibit the exchange of views and provision of advice if employees and partners knew they could be disclosed under FOISA. We consider the public interest in withholding this information outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

We also consider that releasing the records would otherwise prejudice substantially, or be likely to prejudice substantially, the effective conduct of public affairs under section 30(c) of FOISA.

As stated, while there is a clear public interest in the transparent operation of public authorities it is necessary for their proper functioning that review procedures be considered internally without public scrutiny. We need to develop internal rationale and communicate with parties in a private space so that we can properly develop, discuss and revise these functions.

If these records were to be placed in the public domain by disclosing it to you under FOISA, we consider that there would be a reluctance to make substantive contributions and sharing of ideas on prevailing topics and so more restrained, and less helpful contributions will be made over time. This would have a significantly adverse impact upon our Regulatory Investigations team and other GTC Scotland employees involved in this work who need to be able to create draft documents, discuss matters and undertake their functions in relation to the Fitness to Teach process.

Additionally, the records contain personal data of third parties as data that identifies and relates to them, which we consider would be unfair to disclose to you and put into the public domain, as it would be beyond their reasonable expectations and would not be reasonable or possible for us to notify them or seek their consent to disclosure. I have therefore applied the exemption in section 38(1)(b) of FOISA, to withhold this information from disclosure to you, as it would contravene the first data protection principle in Article 5(1)(a) of the UKGDPR.

You may contact informationgovernance@gtcs.org.uk if you are dissatisfied with this response, to request GTC Scotland conduct a review of it. You should describe the original request and explain your grounds of review. You have 40 working days from receipt of this response to submit a review request. When the review process has been completed, if you are still dissatisfied, you may use the Scottish Information Commissioner's guidance on making an appeal to make an appeal to the Commissioner.

You expressed dissatisfaction with the response provided to you on 3 October 2024 further to your information request dated 5 September 2024 (FOI24-25/34), which was handled under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, and asked for it to be reviewed.

Your original request

In your original request you asked for the following:

I would like a copy of information held in relation to the period October 2023 through to May 2024, i.e., from the point right after the GTCS first reached out to the Professional Standards Authority through to the press release confirming the GTCS's decision to commission the PSA to carry out an independent review of its Fitness to Teach process. I don't need all information, just information related to logic / reasons for the GTCS deeming this was necessary given its cost which I would estimate being in excess of £75,000.

A colleague responded to say they had identified records relevant to your request but had withheld them as he believed that the exemptions set out in sections 30(b) and (c) of FOISA applied. They instead directed you to information that we had already published which gave some insight into why we had commissioned the independent review.

Your internal review request

On 3 October 2024 you confirmed that you were submitting a request for a review together with the grounds on which you are seeking a review.

I have reviewed the original request submitted and relevant documentation held by GTC Scotland. In particular, I note in your original request that you emphasise that you ‘don’t need all information, just information related to logic/reasons for the GTCS deeming this [the PSA Review] was necessary’. Although I believe that the exemptions applied previously were relevant to the circumstances, I have therefore undertaken my review in light of the scope of your original request and have identified elements of the documents identified in the original response that I believe indicate the logic/reasons for the review, the disclosure of which would not invoke the exemptions identified in our initial response subject to appropriate redaction.

I attach a document of the relevant records. The majority of the redactions (in red) have been made as a result of the information not being deemed in scope of your request, that is to say they do not deal with the logic/reasons for carrying out the independent review.

The identified records include:

• Email exchanges with the Professional Standards Authority regarding the review
• A paper presented to the Professional Regulatory Assurance Committee on 5 December 2023
• A paper presented to the Professional Regulatory Assurance Committee on 7 May 202
• A draft internal staff One Note document dated 23 January 2024

Elements of the attached documentation have been withheld in line with following exemptions under FOISA. One document considered to be in scope of your request has been withheld in its entirety, as detailed further below:

• A draft internal staff One Note document dated 23 January 2024

Section 30(b)(ii) – free and frank provision of views for the purpose of deliberation

Where the records have been withheld under section 30(b) (ii) (redacted in blue and one document withheld) this has been done as disclosure of them is likely to inhibit substantially the free and frank exchange of views for the purpose of deliberation.

There is clear public interest in the transparent operation of public authorities to ensure accountability in the work that we do. However, we consider it to be essential to enable GTC Scotland to have a private space to note and share views for the purpose of later discussion and deliberation as part of our internal decision- making process. The information withheld under s30(b)(ii) include personal notes of a member of staff. These were used entirely for personal use, to inform discussion and deliberation of the proposed review. The notes were made with the expectation of privacy, in that their views and considerations would be confidential and used only for the purposes of supporting the deliberations on the scope and proposals relevant to the PSA Review.

To disclose this information into the public domain would undermine the expectation of privacy attached to these comments and views noted by an individual and would likely result in our employees, aware that such comments and views may eventually be disclosed through Freedom of Information, being substantially more reluctant to comment on or to make proposals or suggestions in relation to the planning and development of a key piece of work. Disclosure under FOISA would therefore result insubstantially inhibiting the free and frank exchange of views for the purpose of deliberation.

Public interest test

We are required to consider the public interest test when applying s30(b)(ii). While we accept of course, as noted above, that there is a public interest in transparency, accountability and scrutiny of decisions and decision-making processes of public authorities we would argue that this must be balanced against the public interest in our ability to hold internal discussions, deliberations and the sharing of views and opinions in a private space. We consider this to be an essential element of ensuring that the organisation is enabled to make well-informed, fully considered decisions, bringing in the expertise of relevant members of the organisation as required.

Employees engaging in any such process and providing their views in this way will expect to do so in a private and confidential space. The public interest in ensuring that an organisation can continue to carry on a decision-making process in this way and enabling private thought and planning as well as thorough discussion and exchange of views is greater than that of disclosure of personal opinions and views of members of the organisation. Any such disclosure would almost certainly substantially inhibit any such future exchange of views within the decision making process.

For this reason, I consider that the public interest in withholding the relevant information under s38(1)(ii) outweighs the public interest in disclosing it and thereby putting it into the public domain.

s38(1)(b) – personal data

Finally, the records contain personal data of third parties(redacted in black), i.e. data that identifies them and relates to them, which we consider would be unfair to disclose to you and put into the public domain, as it would be beyond their reasonable expectations and would not be reasonable or possible for us to notify them or seek their consent to disclosure. I have therefore applied the exemption in section 38(1)(b) of FOISA, to withhold this information from disclosure to you, as it would contravene the first data protection principle in Article 5(1)(a) of the UK GDPR.

Section 25 – information otherwise available

Some records identified as being within scope have been withheld as they are otherwise available for review, namely through our FOI disclosure log where requests on similar matters have included these records. I therefore apply section 25 – information otherwise available –to these documents.

I hope this additional information is of assistance. If you are dissatisfied with this response to your review request, you have a right of appeal to the Scottish Information Commissioner within 6 months of this review response. The Scottish Information Commissioner’s guidance on making an appeal describes the process, including the application form. Further information, including relevant contact details is available on the website www.itspublicknowledge.info/appeal.

If you are dissatisfied with the decision of the Commissioner, following an appeal to the Commissioner, you have a right of appeal to the Court of Session on a point of law.