FOI Request - Review of 101003806359 Councillor Information, Training, Liability and Allowances
Request 101003848080
Review of 101003806359 Councillor Information, Training, Liability and Allowances
I am requesting an Internal Review of Moray Council’s response to my FOI request 101003806359 (“Councillor Information, Training, Liability and Allowances”).
For avoidance of doubt, this is not a fresh request nor are the remedies sought to be seen as fresh requests; it challenges the adequacy and lawfulness of the response issued on 7 July 2025.
1. Year of birth (anonymised)
You refused to disclose councillor ages/year of birth under Section 38(1)(b) (personal information) for items 1(b), (c) and (d). I am not seeking ages linked to named councillors. An anonymised disclosure of years of birth only (e.g., a simple list: 1966, 1950, 1986, …) would fully satisfy this element and would not identify individuals in a council with more than five members. The public has a legitimate interest in understanding the age profile of elected office-holders. Please review the blanket refusal and provide anonymised year-of-birth data, or a reasoned explanation of how such anonymised disclosure would identify individuals.
2. Training costs – “not held”
You supplied a training schedule, confirming provision by Moray Council and the Improvement Service, with delivery in person/online/hybrid, but stated that costs are not separated out because the in-house OD team is used, and relied on Section 17 (information not held) for costs. Given the identified external provider (Improvement Service) and the likelihood of external sessions carrying fees or subscriptions, the assertion that no cost information is held appears implausible. Please review whether any invoices, purchase orders, subscriptions or recharge records exist for councillor training (including Improvement Service activity), and if precise figures are not readily extractable, provide aggregated annual costs or reasonable estimates in line with Section 15 (duty to advise and assist).
3. Indemnity / liability cover – accuracy of “No”
Your response answers “No” to whether the Council provides indemnity or liability cover for councillors. This appears at odds with sector practice, where councillors are typically covered under the authority’s liability schemes. Please review this point and clarify whether councillors are covered (e.g., within public liability/officials’ indemnity/professional indemnity arrangements), and if so, provide the insurer name, scope/limits, and—if exact apportionment is not held—an indicative cost or explanation of why an estimate cannot reasonably be provided under Section 15.
Remedy sought
• Disclose anonymised years of birth for currently serving councillors.
• Disclose training costs (external invoices/fees or aggregated annual figures/estimates), including any Improvement Service costs.
• Confirm whether indemnity/liability cover exists for councillors and provide the insurer, scope/limits, and an indicative cost or a Section 15-compliant explanation.
Response 30-09-2025
Following your request for a review (our ref: 101003848080) of your Freedom of Information (FOI) Request – Councillor Information, Training, Liability and Allowances (our ref: 101003806359) - a review meeting was held on 19th September 2025. In attendance were the Information Governance Manager and Data Protection Officer, Senior OD Adviser, Solicitor, and Information Co-ordinator, and, in consultation with Assistant Manager - FMS & Banking.
Your FOI Request (101003806359) from 9th June 2025 was discussed.
Your 1. question was regarding Councillor Details.
In your review request you maintain that the Year- of -Birth data of elected members should be released. We uphold our original response of this information being exempt as personal information, because by giving the years of birth it would still be able to identify individual councillors, especially those at either end of the spread of years. Therefore, this information remains exempt under Section 38(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002- personal information.
Your second question was about Training Costs. Our original response to the point regarding costs was that it was exempt under Section 17 FOISA – information not held. We confirm that Moray Council do not hold additional costs for delivering the workshops labelled with the Provider ‘Moray Council’, as they are all delivered in-house by Council employees and costs cannot be separated out, with the training being delivered as part of OD staff’s everyday workload.
Regarding those workshops labelled with the Provider ‘Improvement Service’, we confirm that the Improvement Service was free for the Council to join. There is no cost for any of the 32 Scottish Local Authorities to join, and with the exception of one course, all training was free. More on how they are funded can be found here: https://www.improvementservice.org.uk/about-us . This could have been made clearer in our response; we would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.
Please note, Moray Council incurred one charge of £661.60 in relation to a Scrutiny workshop, which was delivered via the Improvement Service and required additional third- party participation, hence the charge. This was not made clear in our original response, and we would like to apologise for this omission.
Regarding your question 3, our original response to whether the Council provides indemnity or liability cover for councillors was “No”.
This was a direct answer to the first part of your question; the second part did not apply, as it was “If yes […]”.
However, we could have been more detailed and provided a more extensive response, such as: “Any damage, injury or loss to third parties are covered under the Council’s public liability policy, with any damage, injury or loss to Councillors’ themselves being covered under the Council’s employer’s liability policy. Officials’ indemnity is included within the Council’s public liability policy"