All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism
Centre for Scotland Israel Relations
Community Security Trust
Confederation of Friends of Israel Scotland and any of their affiliated organisations (including Glasgow Friends of Israel, Aberdeen Friends of Israel and Edinburgh Friends of Israel)
Glasgow Jewish Representative Council
Government of Israel
Hon Consul for Israel in Scotland
Israel Information Office Scotland
Jewish Human Rights Watch
JNF KKL Scotland (Ltd) also known as the Jewish National Fund
Parliamentary Committee Against Antisemitism Foundation
Scottish Council of Jewish Communities
Scottish Friends of Israel
Stand With Us
The Board of Deputies of British Jews
The Israeli Consul to the UK and the Israeli Embassy
Zionist Federation UK
I can confirm that we hold a number of e-mail correspondence relating to meetings held with two of the respective organisation namely Scottish Council of Jewish Communities (SCoJeC) and Glasgow Jewish Representative Council from your list above and also a number of e-mails that can be described as general correspondence.
A similar question has been raised previously and I would direct you to our FOI section on our website where we have proactively published FOI responses. You will find FOI Response R012991 provides a list of all the information which falls within the terms of your request between the period of 1 May 2014 and 30 April 2016.
In these circumstances, my response will only consider the additional information which we hold between the dates of 1 January -30 April 2014 and 1 May 2016 - 20 December 2016.
I have broken the information down into three categories, set out in Annexes A, B and C.
1 January – 30 April 2014 and 1 May – 20 December 2016
In relation to your first request on the dates above, I have prepared a table (Annex A.pdf) of the relevant meetings. Names of individuals have been redacted under section 38(1)(b) of FOISA as such disclosure would contravene the data protection principles. This is an absolute exemption. You will see that the date, location, representatives of which organisations and the general purpose of each meeting has been provided. I have also provided an additional table at (Annex B.pdf) to this letter which contains a list of emails relevant to the meetings in Annex A. These emails have also been redacted in terms of Section 38(1)(b) of FOISA to ensure that we comply with our obligations under the Data Protection Act. I have also applied an exemption under section 30(b)(i) and (ii) as the provision of the material requested would be likely to, inhibit substantially
(ii) the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberations
In relation to the second part of your request, I have provided a table at (Annex C.pdf) to this letter which contains a list of e-mail correspondence that falls under the category of general correspondence which is not caught by any of the exemptions outlined above or by the first part of your request. These emails have also been redacted in terms of Section 38(1)(b) to ensure that we comply with our obligations under the Data Protection Act.
The exemption under section 34(1)(a)(i) has also been applied where the information contained in email exchanges is exempt information held by COPFS for the purpose of investigation and prosecution of offences. This relates to a case where proceedings are still live. This is not an absolute exemption and I have therefore considered whether the public interest favours disclosure of the information, notwithstanding the exemption. I consider that there is a strong public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of information concerning allegations of criminality. The Courts have traditionally placed great emphasis on assertions on confidentiality in relation to such information. In addition, witnesses have a legitimate expectation that information will be used for such purposes and will not be further processed unnecessarily. The release of information in relation to ongoing prosecution would seriously undermine the confidence which witnesses and, consequently the public, would have in the criminal justice system.