25-26/014

We refer to your information request of 02 June 2025, made in the following terms:

I am not sure if the copy of cases sent to the PSA to participate in the random selection process phase, i.e., the 123 cases were fully anonymised or not. If the 123 cases shared with the PSA were fully anonymised for the random selection process phase please provide me with a copy of the anonymised cases for the Initial Consideration decision point only. I don't need this for the other decision points.

We have dealt with your information request under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA).

On 04 June 2025, you clarified that you were actually referring to the “132” cases mentioned in the report and not “123” as per your request.  

On 05 June 2025, you clarified that you wanted the “list, referrals and the entire case” as well as “any associated emails” which you described on 06 June 2025 as “discussions via emails going on about the random selection process” involved in the review. Thank you for providing us with these clarifications.  

We confirm that we hold information falling within the scope of your request. However, we have withheld information from you on the basis of a number of exemptions contained in Part 2 of FOISA, as explained below.  

List of referrals provided to the Professional Standards Authority

This information is exempt under section 38(1)(b) of FOISA (read with section 38(2A)(a)) because we consider that individuals could be identified from that data directly or indirectly and that disclosure of this data into the public domain would be a breach of the first data protection principle. Such disclosure would be unfair in terms of the UK GDPR (Article 5(1)(a)) and therefore unlawful. The exemption in section 38(1)(b) is not subject to the public interest test under FOISA.

Referrals and Cases

This information is exempt under section 38(1)(b) of FOISA (read with section 38(2A)(a)) because we consider that individuals could be identified from that data directly or indirectly and that disclosure of this data into the public domain would be a breach of the first data protection principle. Such disclosure would be unfair in terms of the UK GDPR (Article 5(1)(a)) and therefore unlawful. The exemption in section 38(1)(b) is not subject to the public interest test under FOISA.

The information contained in the records is also subject to section 30(c) of FOISA. This is because we consider that disclosure of this information, into the public domain, would substantially prejudice the ability of GTC Scotland to conduct its public affairs in the future. Obtaining free and frank expression of views from voluntary participants as part of a consultation or review requires them to be given certain assurances about what will happen to that information in the future.

In this case, participants were given assurances about a certain level of privacy, even in terms of the PSA sharing personal details with GTC Scotland. Disclosure of some of the information falling within the scope of your request would be likely to significantly prejudice our ability to undertake, or partake in, consultations and reviews in the future, through a ‘chilling effect’ on future participants. We consider it likely that voluntary participants in future stakeholder consultations would be less frank and open in their comments if they had a reasonable expectation, based on our previous course of action, that their comments would be placed in the public domain.  

We consider that some of the requested information falls within the exemption in section 35(1)(g) of FOISA, read with section 35(2)(d)(ii). That is because it is likely that disclosure of that information into the public domain under FOISA would be likely to prejudice substantially the ability by GTC Scotland in the future to exercise its regulatory functions for the purposes of ascertaining whether a person is responsible for conduct which is improper, or a person’s fitness or competence in relation to the profession of teaching which that person is, or is seeking to become, authorised to carry on. These regulatory functions are at the heart of what GTC Scotland does in relation to its Fitness to Teach work and disclosure of certain information contained in the records you have requested would in our view be likely to interfere with our ability to perform these functions effectively.  

Public Interest

The exemptions in section 30(c) and 35(1)(g) of FOISA are subject to a test of the public interest, with the test to be applied being the public interest in maintaining the exemption, balanced against the public interest in disclosing the information. FOISA does not define the public interest, but it has been described as something which is of serious concern and benefit to the public, not merely something of individual interest. It has also been described as something that is in the interest of the public, not merely of interest to the public, i.e. it serves the interests of the public.  

With this in mind, we recognise that there is a general public interest in public authorities, including regulatory bodies, making information accessible to the public to enhance public scrutiny of decision-making processes and to improve accountability and participation. We also recognise a public interest in disclosing information which would contribute to ensuring that a public authority with regulatory responsibilities is adequately discharging its functions.

However, balanced against those public interest considerations in disclosure, we note that GTC Scotland is a body that is funded by the teaching profession in relation to its core functions, and not a body funded from the public purse, so there is no public interest in disclosing the use of funds in relation to obtaining value for money.  

We consider that the public interest in ensuring that the GTC Scotland is adequately discharging its functions is already met through means other than the disclosure of the information withheld under sections 30(c) and 35(1)(g). The PSA report itself, commissioned by GTC Scotland, is a key mechanism for achieving that purpose and that has already been published. In order to ensure that the PSA report, and future such reports, are as effective as possible in reviewing GTC Scotland’s performance of its functions, a private space is required for stakeholder consultation on sensitive matters to ensure such a review receives frank and honest input from those best placed to provide input and comments to such a report.

Disclosing the small amount of information falling within the scope of the s30(c) and 35(1)(g) exemptions would significantly harm our ability to perform our regulatory functions and to review the adequacy of the discharge of those regulatory functions.

Overall, taking into account all relevant considerations, we consider that the public interest is far better served by maintaining the application of the exemptions in sections 30(c) and 35(1)(g) of FOISA to certain information falling within the scope of your request, than by releasing that information.

Associated Emails

Please find the information addressing your query extracted from the records and labelled as “FOI_25-26_014_Records" accompanying this response.  

If you are dissatisfied with how we have dealt with your information request, you may contact informationgovernance@gtcs.org.uk to request GTC Scotland conduct a review of it. You should describe the original request and explain why you are dissatisfied. You have 40 working days from receipt of this response to submit a review request to us. When the review process has been completed, if you are still dissatisfied, you can apply to the Scottish Information Commissioner for a decision in this case under section 47 of FOISA. Details of how to do so can be found on their website.