Ravenscraig meetings information: FOI release (reference 4861)

02 December 2020

13 January 2021

RAVENSCRAIG PARTNERSHIP LTD

• Dates, confirmation of attendees, agendas, minutes and notes of meetings between Scottish
  Enterprise and Ravenscraig Ltd between 30th October 2018 and 2020.
• Copies of all correspondence between Scottish Enterprise and Ravenscraig Ltd between 30th October 2018 and 2020.

WILSON BOWDEN DEVELOPMENTS

• Dates, confirmation of attendees, agendas, minutes and notes of meetings between Scottish Enterprise and Wilson Bowden Developments (in relation to Ravenscraig) between 30th October 2018 and 2020.
• Copies of all correspondence between Scottish Enterprise and Wilson Bowden Developments (in relation to Ravenscraig) between 30th October 2018 and 2020.

NORTH LANARKSHIRE COUNCIL

• Dates, confirmation of attendees, agendas, minutes and notes of meetings between Scottish Enterprise and North Lanarkshire Council (in relation to Ravenscraig) between 30th October 2018 and 2020.
• Copies of all correspondence between Scottish Enterprise and North Lanarkshire Council (in relation to Ravenscraig) between 30th October 2018 and 2020.

TATA STEEL

• Dates, confirmation of attendees, agendas, minutes and notes of meetings between Scottish Enterprise and Tata Steel (in relation to Ravenscraig) between 30th October 2018 and 2020.
• Copies of all correspondence between Scottish Enterprise and Tata Steel (in relation to Ravenscraig) between 30th October 2018 and 2020.

RUSSELL GROUP

• Dates, confirmation of attendees, agendas, minutes and notes of meetings between Scottish Enterprise and Russell Group between 30th October 2018 and 2020.
• Copies of all correspondence between Scottish Enterprise and Russell Group between 30th October 2018 and 2020.
• Copies of all media lines (including correspondence relating to their development) between Scottish Enterprise and Russell Group between 30th October 2018 and 2020.
• Copied of correspondence relating to potential financial assistance to Russell Group or related businesses.

WEBER SHANDWICK

• Dates, confirmation of attendees, agendas, minutes and notes of meetings between Scottish Enterprise and Weber Shandwick (in relation to Ravenscraig) between 30th October 2018 and 2020.
• Copies of all correspondence between Scottish Enterprise and Weber Shandwick (in relation to Ravenscraig) between 30th October 2018 and 2020.
• Copies of all media lines (including correspondence relating to their development) between Scottish Enterprise and Weber Shandwick (in relation to Ravenscraig) between 30th October 2018 and 2020.

The information released in response to this request exceeds our website document size limit. If you wish to receive a copy of this information, please contact us at pressoffice@scotent.co.uk

Copies of relevant meeting information and email correspondence is provided to you now. Please note that the vast majority of emails held were sent to /received by several recipients from different organisations, therefore it was not possible to separate them by organisation as requested. Ravenscraig media lines were not held, hence section 17 of FOISA applies. We advise you that exemptions have been applied throughout the released documents. A detailed description of why these exemptions have been applied is as follows:

Section 38(1)(b) - personal information

The exemption contained in section 38(1)(b) of FOISA has been applied to some of the information you requested, and that information redacted. Section 38(1)(b) together with Article 5(1) of the GDPR creates an exemption from disclosure where the information requested constitutes the personal data of a third party and disclosure of that data would breach any of the data protection principles set out in the Data Protection Act 2018 (“DPA”). Article 5(1) states that “personal data shall be processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to the data subject.”

As an absolute exemption, there is no need to consider the public interest in the application of this exemption. SE is satisfied that the information that has been withheld constitutes the ‘personal data’ of the individuals concerned, as defined in section 1(1) of the DPA 2018. SE has examined whether or not disclosure of the information you have requested, insofar as that is personal data, would breach the requirements of the first data protection principle.

Fairness

In assessing whether release of the information would be fair, we have had regard to the Scottish Information Commissioner’s Exemption Briefing Series on the section 38 exemption, and to guidance produced by the UK Information Commissioner, who has overall responsibility for data protection issues throughout the UK. In line with that guidance, and in coming to the decision to withhold personal data on the basis that it would be unfair to release it, we have taken into consideration:

• Any potential damage or distress which may be caused by disclosure of the information
• The seniority of the individuals’ positions
• Whether the information relates to the public or private life of the individual
• And the expectations of the data subjects with regard to the release of the information

We are of the view that release of the information would be unfair and in breach of the first data protection principle, therefore making it unlawful. Given that the disclosure would be unfair, and therefore unlawful, release would not comply with the first data protection principle, and as such it is not necessary to go on to consider any of the conditions in schedules 2 or 3 of the DPA 2018, or other aspects of lawfulness. The information must be withheld under section 38(1)(b) of FOISA, taken together with Article 5(1) of the GDPR.

Section 33(1)(b) Commercial Interests

The exemption contained in section 33(1)(b) of FOISA has been applied to some of the information you requested, and that information redacted. This section allows information to be withheld where its disclosure under the Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice substantially the commercial interests of any person (including, without prejudice to that generality, a Scottish public authority). The public interest test and harm test are provided as follows: Release of information would have the result of causing real, significant and substantial prejudice to the parties involved.

Harm test – substantial prejudice

Release of the information would reveal confidential aspects of the organisation's current positions and future plans to the public, which would have a negative commercial impact. This is particularly relevant to development projects and partnership initiatives, as public knowledge would remove any advantage that could be sought from bringing these initiatives forward in a competitive marketplace. The information withheld relates to commercial activity and includes finance details, contract discussions and negotiations, development proposals, and live funding applications. It is therefore our view that disclosure of this information would cause the organisations real, significant and substantial prejudice.

The public interest test

We recognise that there is a public interest in decision-making processes within public authorities being as open and transparent as is possible. We also recognise that making certain information available can increase the accountability of public authorities for decisions that are made that may have an impact on the wider public.

However, balanced against these considerations there is also a public interest in ensuring regard is given to the protection of commercial interests which would be diminished by the release of the requested information. We consider that there is no public interest or benefit in releasing information which could have an adverse effect on the commercial interests of third parties.

Allowing parties to maintain confidentiality in their commercial positions for prospective transactions is important to support the proper and efficient operation of free markets, which is of serious concern and benefit to the public. As such we consider that the public interest also favours the withholding of this information. On balance, we have concluded that, in respect of the commercially sensitive information requested, the public interest is better served in withholding the information.