24-25/101

I refer to your request for information (FOI 24-25/101) dated 22 February 2025 and received as post on 26 February for records related to the Fitness to Teach process which we have handled under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act (FOISA). Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding to your request. We will also ensure that this document is posted to yourself.

Please see our response to each of your queries below.

1. What criteria does GTCS use to determine whether a referral meets the threshold for a Fitness to Teach investigation?

The criteria used by GTC Scotland when considering the threshold for investigation under the Fitness to Teach process is held within the Threshold Policy (https://www.gtcs.org.uk/documents/fitness-to-teach-threshold-policy) on the GTC Scotland website. Reference is also made to the Code of Professionalism and Conduct as part of this process. As this information is otherwise available, I have applied section 25(1) of FOISA.

By way of advice and assistance, you might be interested in FOI 24-25/64 on our Disclosure Log as a response to a similar request.

2. Has GTCS ever investigated a Fitness to Teach referral based on alleged dishonesty under oath? If so, how many such cases have been considered in the last five years?

I have referred your request for information to our Regulatory Investigations team who have considered it. To locate and retrieve the information we would need to interrogate 890 records, being referrals dating back to 2020, to determine if they fit the criteria of your request as we do not record information in the format requested. Due to the significant amount of time and resources it would take to interrogate the records we have determined that section 12(1) of FOISA would apply due to the excessive cost of compliance. Please see our detailed Fees Notice below:

The number of records to be interrogated: 890

Actual cost of staff time at hourly rate of member of staff: £15.00 as the search would need to be undertaken by a Regulatory Case Manager who has the required knowledge of these records.

Number of hours required to complete the search: 890 records at an average of 10 minutes per record for a total of 148 hours.

Total cost: 148 hours multiplied by £15.00 per hour = £2200

As the anticipated fee is above the upper limit (of £600) beyond which we are not required to comply with the request, we have not provided a response to this element of your request.

By way of advice and assistance, if you were to limit the scope of your request to a single year then this would reduce the amount of Fees generated by this request and may be within the fee limits (though for the avoidance of doubt, may still attract a fee due to the level of records required to be interrogated).

3. What external legal or regulatory bodies, if any, does GTCS consult when assessing whether to investigate a referral involving potential criminal conduct?

All referrals received by GTC Scotland are considered, and investigated, on a case by case basis. There is therefore no information held by GTC Scotland which prescribes which external regulatory bodies are consulted through the investigation process. This determination will be made by a Regulatory Investigation Officer depending on the nature of the case. As such, I have applied section 17(1)(b) – information not held - to this query as we do not hold a recorded information disclosure.

By way of advice and assistance, we provide further detail on our website to detail our investigation process (https://www.gtcs.org.uk/fitness-to-teach/the-process/the-investigation-process) which. further details who we may speak to during our investigations. further considers the investigation process.

In addition, you may be interested in FOI 24-25/51 and FOI 24-25/85 available on our Disclosure Log.

4. What training, if any, is provided to GTCS Regulatory Investigations staff regarding the assessment of referrals involving alleged dishonesty or criminal offences?

I note that you have not asked for specific training records but instead asked for an explanation as to what training is undertaken. Please note that FOISA requires that only recorded information be disclosed, rather than to providing opinion or narrative or creating documentation for release. As such, I have applied section 17(1)(b) – information not held - to this query as we do not hold a recorded information disclosure. Should you wish to refine your request here to specific records, then please do let me know and I can process this as a further information request.

By way of advice and assistance, I can explain that when Regulatory Investigation staff join GTC Scotland, a full induction programme is completed in order to provide comprehensive training about the organisation, their role and the fitness to teach process, which will include the investigation process. We have a number of resources available for Regulatory Investigation staff members to refer to in their work. Professional learning opportunities are also available to Regulatory Investigation staff members. Regulatory Investigations colleagues receive training on the nature of investigation referred to GTC Scotland and the best practice for administering them.  

5. Does GTCS consider decisions made by its Regulatory Investigations team to be equivalent to those made by a Fitness to Teach Panel or Fitness to Teach Officer?

Please note that FOISA requires that only recorded information is disclosable, rather than to provide opinion or narrative or create documentation for release. As such, I have applied section 17(1)(b) – information not held - to this query as we do not hold this as a recorded opinion for disclosure.

6. Does GTCS consider perjury to be ‘relevant conduct’ for the purposes of a Fitness to Teach investigation?

Please note that FOISA requires that only recorded information be disclosed, rather than to providing opinion or narrative or creating documentation for release. As such, I have applied section 17(1)(b) – information not held - to this query as we do not hold a recorded information disclosure.

However, by way of advice and assistance, please see our Threshold Policy as referenced above, which discusses the factors which are considered when deciding whether alleged behaviour amounts to relevant conduct.

7. Does GTCS take the position that perjury does not meet the ‘level of seriousness’ required to raise concerns about a registrants fitness to teach?

Please note that FOISA requires that only recorded information be disclosed, rather than providing opinion or narrative or creating documentation for release. As such, I have applied section 17(1)(b) – information not held - to this query as we do not hold a recorded information disclosure.

As above, by way of advice and assistance, please see our Threshold Policy as referenced above, which discusses the factors which are considered when deciding whether alleged behaviour amounts to relevant conduct.

8. If Police Scotland were to investigate an allegation of perjury against a registered teacher, what internal policies or guidelines would GTCS rely on to determine whether to investigate the same matter?

The guidelines for determining whether to investigate a matter is otherwise available on our website in the Threshold Policy. As such, I have applied section 25(1) of FOISA to this query.

9. If Police Scotland were to submit a report to the Procurator Fiscal regarding a registered teacher’s alleged perjury, would GTCS still maintain a decision not to investigate? If so, what internal policies, procedures, or guidance would support this decision?

The guidelines for determining whether to investigate a matter is otherwise available on our website in the Threshold Policy. As such, I have applied section 25(1) of FOISA to this query.

10. On what basis can GTCS’s Regulatory Investigations team assure a referred teacher that ‘no further action will be taken’ when a judicial review could ultimately compel GTCS to act?

As FOISA only requires that only recorded information be disclosed, please note that I have applied Section 17(1) to this query as there is no record for disclosure.  

By way of advice and assistance, please note that decisions where “no further action” is decided and communicated to the individual teacher, this is confirmation of the decision that has been taken by GTC Scotland within the Fitness to Teach process. External legal processes such as Judicial Review or Statutory Appeal are external legal processes, the outcomes of which are not within our control.

11. Is GTCS concerned that the cost of judicial review may discourage individuals from challenging a Regulatory Investigations decision not to investigate?

Please note that FOISA requires that only recorded information is disclosable, rather than to provide opinion or narrative or create documentation for release. As such, I have applied section 17(1)(b) – information not held - to this query as we do not hold a recorded information disclosure.

If you are dissatisfied with this response, you may contact informationgovernance@gtcs.org.uk 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 do so.

We refer to your request for a review dated 21 April 2025 of the response that we provided to your request for information dated 09 April 2025 (FOI 24-25/101), which we have handled under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA).

Your original request

In your original request you asked for the following:

1. What criteria does GTCS use to determine whether a referral meets the threshold for a Fitness to Teach investigation?  
2. Has GTCS ever investigated a Fitness to Teach referral based on alleged dishonesty under oath? If so, how many such cases have been considered in the last five years?
3. What external legal or regulatory bodies, if any, does GTCS consult when assessing whether to investigate a referral involving potential criminal conduct?  
4. What training, if any, is provided to GTCS Regulatory Investigations staff regarding the assessment of referrals involving alleged dishonesty or criminal offences?  
5. Does GTCS consider decisions made by its Regulatory Investigations team to be equivalent to those made by a Fitness to Teach Panel or Fitness to Teach Officer?  
6. Does GTCS consider perjury to be ‘relevant conduct’ for the purposes of a Fitness to Teach investigation?  
7. Does GTCS take the position that perjury does not meet the ‘level of seriousness’ required to raise concerns about a registrants fitness to teach?
8. If Police Scotland were to investigate an allegation of perjury against a registered teacher, what internal policies or guidelines would GTCS rely on to determine whether to investigate the same matter?  
9. If Police Scotland were to submit a report to the Procurator Fiscal regarding a registered teacher’s alleged perjury, would GTCS still maintain a decision not to investigate? If so, what internal policies, procedures, or guidance would support this decision?  
10. On what basis can GTCS’s Regulatory Investigations team assure a referred teacher that ‘no further action will be taken’ when a judicial review could ultimately compel GTCS to act?  
11. Is GTCS concerned that the cost of judicial review may discourage individuals from challenging a Regulatory Investigations decision not to investigate?

Your internal review request

In your review request of 22 November, you state:

While I appreciate your efforts to provide information and direct me to published materials, I must express concern that several of my questions were either not meaningfully answered or dismissed on the grounds that no recorded information is held. I would like to outline some specific points where I believe the handling of the request falls short of FOISA obligations, or where further clarity is warranted.

1. Threshold Criteria and Use of Section 25(1)

I was referred to the Threshold Policy, which I had already reviewed prior to submitting my request. While I understand that section 25(1) can apply to published material, this does not necessarily fulfil your duty to provide the relevant information in direct response to the specific question posed. In particular, clarification on how the policy is interpreted in practice would be relevant, especially in the context of serious misconduct such as alleged perjury. If internal documents or decision-making frameworks exist to support this, they should be disclosed.

2. Refusal of Question 2 under Section 12 – Excessive Cost

You indicate that identifying referrals involving dishonesty under oath would involve interrogating 890 records, requiring 148 hours of work. This seems excessive and potentially disproportionate, especially given that such cases are likely rare and may be tagged or searchable by key terms. If certain filters or keyword searches could reduce the scope, you are required under FOISA to advise and assist with a revised request that falls within cost limits. I would ask that this be re-evaluated accordingly.

3. Repeated Use of Section 17(1)(b)

Several of my questions were met with a response that the information is not held in recorded form, including those concerning:

Consultations with external bodies Training for Regulatory Investigations staff

GTCS's position on perjury as relevant conduct

Internal decision-making processes regarding referrals not being investigated

While I understand that FOISA only applies to recorded information, I would respectfully suggest that if such topics are not documented in any internal guidance, training materials, or policy discussions, that itself raises serious questions about the rigour and transparency of the GTCS's Fitness to Teach process. If any internal training schedules, memos, or materials exist—even partially relevant—they should be disclosed. FOISA does not require that such records directly answer the question posed, only that they are relevant and held.

4. Public Interest and Serious Misconduct

Given that this request relates to allegations of criminal conduct, and the potential for a Judicial Review and Police Scotland investigation, the public interest in transparency is significant. Responses which narrowly interpret FOISA to avoid engagement with key issues may give the appearance—however unintended—of evasiveness. This would be especially inappropriate under the circumstances.

Please see our response to your review request below.

Our response

Thank you for setting out the points of dissatisfaction in relation to how we responded to your initial request for information. We have examined how we dealt with each part of your information request, which contained a total of 11 parts. Having done so, we consider that each of our responses was correct and we have upheld each of those responses at review stage.

We note that, although you were seeking answers to questions that you raised, FOISA does not require public authorities to create new information in response to questions but rather to provide copies of records that it holds, subject to the application of statutory exemptions.

In relation to your point raising a concern about what you see as a repeated use of section 17, where we issued a section 17(1) notice, this was because we simply do not hold the information you requested in a recorded form; it was not a case of us not providing a meaningful answer to, or dismissing, your questions.

We note that you consider any “internal documents or decision-making frameworks” on “how the (Threshold) policy is interpreted in practice” to be relevant, “especially in the context of serious misconduct such as alleged perjury.” By way of advice and assistance we refer you to FOI 24-25/51 on our Disclosure Log as a response to a request for a draft internal guidance document. You might be interested in pages 29 and 33 of the released records as they specifically reference “perjury” and “serious misconduct” in line with your review request

Additionally, we have conducted a search for records within several resources available to our Regulatory Investigation staff members. There are no records beyond what has already been referenced which would be relevant to your request. We are required to provide you, as far as it is reasonable to expect us to do so, with advice and assistance as a person who has made an information request. We have provided that advice and assistance in relation to each of our responses, where relevant. However, this duty does not extend to entering into a debate why, as a point of fact, we do not hold certain information.

In relation to our refusal of question 2 of your request under section 12 of FOISA due to the cost of complying with it exceeding the prescribed FOISA fees limit of £600 set out in regulations, we have provided a breakdown of our estimate of fees in detail in our initial response. We have interrogated that calculation and remain of the view that it is an accurate estimate of the cost of dealing with your request. We have provided an example as to how the cost might be reduced by restricting the scope of your request in terms of the time period. Please let us know if you wish to make a more restricted request in this regard and we can deal with that under FOISA.

In relation to your comments on the public interest and serious misconduct, we consider that there is no basis for suggesting evasiveness or a narrow interpretation of FOISA. FOISA does not require an authority to engage in key issues as part of a debate; it gives a right to request records.

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 its website. 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.