FOI21/22 020 Appeals Consultation 2021

Date published: 20/08/2021

FOI reference: 21/22 020

Date received: 02/06/2021

Date responded: 20/08/2021

Information requested

Internal comms regarding/referring to responses to, or analysis of, the responses to the SQA appeals consultation, the details of which are now published on the SQA website:

The time frame for this request is 1/3/2021 - 2/6/2021


The information you have requested has been provided in the attached file.   The Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act (FOISA) provides the right of access to information and not documents and SQA has provided a table of the references to, or analysis of, the SQA appeals consultation from a variety of internal documents.   This has been redacted for personal data only.

Internal email correspondence has also been included and this has been redacted for personal data.  While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance SQA is unable to provide some of the information you have requested because exemption 30(b)(ii) (free and frank exchange of views) of FOISA applies to this information.  The exemption applies because disclosure would, or would be likely to, inhibit substantially the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation.   The exemption recognises the need for individuals to have a private space within which to seek advice and views from others before reaching a settled public position.   Disclosing the content would substantially inhibit the provision of advice and the exchange of views in the future.

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 being an open, transparent and accountable public body, and to inform public debate. However, there is a greater public interest in allowing a private space within which officials can provide free and frank advice and views to other officials.


Response (347 KB)