Decision 197/2026:  Rotasfor medical trainees and locally employed doctors

Authority: Grampian Health Board
Case Ref: 202501942
 

Summary

The Applicant asked the Authority for information relating to rotas for medical trainees and locally employed doctors.  The Authority stated that it did not hold the information requested. The Commissioner investigated and found that the Authority had failed to interpret the Applicant’s request correctly and had otherwise failed to carry out searches for the information requested by the Applicant.  The Commissioner required the Authority to reconsider the Applicant’s request, carry out adequate and proportionate searches for the information requested and issue the Applicant with a revised review outcome.

Relevant statutory provisions

Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) sections 1(1), (2), (4) and (6) (General entitlement); 17(1) (Notice that information is not held); 47(1) and (2) (Application for decision by Commissioner).

Background

1. On 3 September 2025, the Applicant made a request for information to the Authority. Among other things, they asked for:

“For each of the main rotational start dates for medical trainees and locally employed doctors in August 2023, February 2024, August 2024, February 2025, and August 2025 please provide: 

1.  The total number of resident doctor rotas that were issued to resident doctors less than six weeks prior to the rota start date.  Please provide this information broken down by hospital, division and specialty for each of the rotational start dates. 
2. The total number of individual resident doctors who received their rota less than six weeks prior to its start date. 
3. The specific dates on which the health board received the definitive lists of incoming trainee allocations from NHS Education for Scotland (NES). 

…

 5.   Of the rotas identified in question 1 as being issued late, for how many of these instances is there a record of proactive communication being sent to the affected resident doctors to inform them of the delay ahead of time?”

2. The Authority responded on 26 September 2025.  In respect of parts 1, 2 and 5, it informed the Applicant that it held no information for (or prior to) August 2025, and it advised the Applicant that, in terms of part 3 of their request, there were “no specific dates recorded”.  It therefore issued the Applicant with a notice, in terms of section 17(1) of FOISA, that it did not hold the information requested.
3. On 26 September 2025, the Applicant wrote to the Authority requesting a review of its decision. They stated that they were dissatisfied with the decision for the following reasons:

• For parts 1, 2 and 5, the Authority had been instructed in July 2025 to prepare for collection of this data, and therefore it was not credible that it held no data for August 2025 (and it was highly improbable that no records/emails existed for previous rotations).
• For part 3, the Authority’s section 17(1) response was “fundamentally undermined” by specific guidance within a rota process document it had disclosed to him previously. 

4. The Authority notified the Applicant of the outcome of its review on 23 October 2025, which fully upheld its original decision and explained that:

• For parts 1, 2 and 5, that information was being collected for the first time, via an ongoing NHS/British Medical Association survey for which no “reporting data” was extant. 
• For part 3, NES normally aimed to have information available 10 to 12 weeks in advance, but had been unable to do so this year, resulting in updates being provided iteratively. Consequently, there was no specific date of receipt of definitive lists given these were released “as and when ready”.

5. The same day, the Applicant wrote to the Commissioner, applying for a decision in terms of section 47(1) of FOISA.  They stated that they were dissatisfied with the outcome of the Authority’s review for the reasons set out in their requirement for review and because:

• For parts 1, 2 and 5, the Authority’s choice not to collate/compile that information previously did not equate to underlying information (e.g. information in rota coordinators’ emails) not being held for the purposes of FOISA.
• For part 3, the Authority had, in claiming that it held no “specific date” given lists arrived “iteratively”, applied an “overly literal interpretation” as the dates on which NES provided allocation information (even if “in batches”) comprised recorded information falling within the scope of their request.

Investigation

6. The Commissioner determined that the application complied with section 47(2) of FOISA and that he had the power to carry out an investigation.
7. On 13 January 2026, the Authority was notified in writing that the Applicant had made a valid application.  The case was subsequently allocated to an investigating officer.
8. Section 49(3)(a) of FOISA requires the Commissioner to give public authorities an opportunity to provide comments on an application.  The Authority was invited to comment on this application and to answer specific questions, related to how the Authority interpreted the Applicant’s request and how it established what information it held falling within the scope of that request.

Commissioner’s analysis and findings

9. The Commissioner has considered all of the submissions made to him by the Applicant and the Authority. 
10. During the investigation, and with a view to effecting settlement of the application, the Authority obtained some information from the Scottish Government that it considered satisfied parts 1, 2 and 5 of the Applicant’s request “in full” for 2025.
11. The Authority stated that it was content to disclose this information, which comprised the Authority’s submission to the 2025 Scottish Government workforce survey, to the Applicant (subject to minor redactions). 
12. The Commissioner appreciates the work undertaken by the Authority to obtain and provide the Applicant with information it considered relevant to their request (but which it considered it did not hold at the time of the request) and its willingness to disclose that information to the Applicant. 
13. Given the matters that he considered required to be addressed in his decision notice, the Commissioner did not recommend that the Authority disclose this information to the Applicant at that stage.  However, he would now invite the Authority to provide this information to the Applicant, should it still consider it appropriate to do so.

Section 17(1) – Notice that information is not held

14. Section 1(1) of FOISA provides that a person who requests information from a Scottish public authority which holds it is entitled to be given that information by the authority, subject to qualifications which, by virtue of section 1(6) of FOISA, allow Scottish public authorities to withhold information or charge a fee for it.  The qualifications contained in section 1(6) are not applicable in this case.
15. The information to be given is that held by the authority at the time the request is received, as defined in section 1(4) of FOISA.  This is not necessarily to be equated with information an applicant believes the authority should hold.  If no such information is held by the authority, section 17(1) of FOISA requires it to give the applicant notice in writing to that effect.

The Applicant’s submissions

16. The Applicant considered that the Authority held information satisfying parts 1, 2, 3 and 5 of their request, for the reasons set out at paragraphs 3 and 5 above.

The Authority’s submissions

17. The Authority explained that it had interpreted parts 1, 2 and 5 of the Applicant’s request as seeking composite reporting “of the nature now secured for 2025” and comparable data for each year.  It considered that this “seemed clear” from the terms of the request. 
18. The Authority further stated that part 3 of the Applicant’s request was “clear and unambiguous” in that it sought:

“The specific dates on which the health board received the definitive lists of incoming trainee allocations from NHS Education for Scotland (NES)”.  (The Authority’s emphasis.)

19. The Authority explained that in responding to the Applicant’s request it had asked key officials to consider whether information was held which fell within the scope of the Applicant’s request and that it had received expert input from its Workforce team (evidence of which it provided to the Commissioner).

Parts 1, 2 and 5 of the request

20. The Authority stated that it did not hold aggregate reporting from the 2025 survey itself and explained that the survey had been completed by individual services via an online form.  It acknowledged that Authority officials may have saved local copies of the information but considered that the point was now “moot” on the basis that it had obtained aggregate 2025 information from the Scottish Government. 
21. The Authority further stated that it did not hold aggregate information prior to 2025 as an exercise in tracking relevant dates had not been carried out prior to the submission of data in 2025 for the purposes of the survey.
22. With regard to any local copies of information falling within the scope of the Applicant’s request, the Authority submitted that identifying that information retrospectively would involve a significant manual trawl of systems.  On that basis, it considered that a more appropriate response may have been notice in terms of section 12(1) (Excessive cost of compliance) of FOISA.
23. In support of this, the Authority estimated that, on the basis of the 2025 survey data it obtained from the Scottish Government, which related to 55 Authority rotas, the cost of providing relevant information to the Applicant would be £1,650. However, it noted that the 55 rotas on which it had based its sampling were not all the rotas.
24. The Authority further stated that, on the basis of advice provided by its Workforce colleagues, it was not certain that additional searches would identify information relevant to the Applicant’s request, notwithstanding the cost of undertaking those searches.

Part 3 of the request

25. The Authority disagreed that it had taken an overly literal approach to its interpretation of part 3, given the “precision” of that part of the request.  It explained that NES lists were released “when ready” and were “iterative” and, therefore, there were “no specific dates” and it was not possible to point to a “definitive list”. 
26. The Authority explained that colleagues logged into an online portal (“TURAS”) to access rota information rather than having information sent to them.  As such, it considered that it did not hold the date of access/publication.
27. The Authority also submitted that, “when it comes to rotation time”, updates were received from NES on a daily basis (via TURAS) and that it was the responsibility of “HR Teams to keep on top of it”.  On that basis, there was no “single date when final numbers were confirmed”.

Parts 1, 2, 3 and 5 – excessive cost of providing information

28. The Authority stated that it had considered, during the investigation, whether relevant information, even if “partial and fragmentary”, might be held in other places. Having done so, the Authority stated that it considered that a reasonable and proportionate attempt to retrieve such information, if held, was likely to exceed the upper cost limit under FOISA.
29. The Authority further explained that any retention of this data would be “ad-hoc at best”, given that before 2025 services were not asked to record this information and in light of the “dynamic nature” of the process between Health Boards and NES.

The Commissioner’s view

30. The Commissioner has considered carefully the submissions from both the Applicant and the Authority.

Parts 1, 2 and 5 of the request

31. Parts 1, 2 and 5 of the Applicant’s request asked the Authority for totals (and various related information) connected to the “late” issuing of rotas to resident doctors in respect of specified rotational start dates over a three-year period. 
32. In the circumstances, and for the reasons set out below, the Commissioner is not satisfied that the Authority has fully engaged with those parts of the Applicant’s request.  In reaching this conclusion, he has carefully considered the Authority’s submissions, together with the terms of parts 1, 2 and 5 of the Applicant’s request. 
33. The Authority stated that it had interpreted the Applicant’s request as seeking composite reporting of a specific 2025 survey “of a nature now secured for 2025” and comparable data for each year, which it considered was clear from the terms of their request.
34. Notwithstanding any wider context known to the Authority, including the contemporaneous undertaking of such a survey, the Commissioner does not accept that, on a plain reading, the Applicant’s request relates, or refers to, a survey – its aggregate output or otherwise.
35. The Commissioner also notes that, although the Authority considered the survey submission it obtained from the Scottish Government satisfied parts 1, 2, and 5 “in full” for 2025, the submission does not appear to include some categories of information specified in those parts of the Applicant’s request.  This includes, for example, the totals referred to in parts 1, 2 and 5 (including by hospital, division and speciality and where that information relates to “proactive communications” to affected doctors).
36. In light of the above, the Commissioner considers that the Authority failed to fully engage with the scope of parts 1, 2 and 5 of the Applicant’s request.  He therefore finds that the Authority failed to comply with section 1(1) of FOISA in this respect. 
37. Notwithstanding its failure to correctly interpret parts 1, 2 and 5 of the Applicant’s request, the Commissioner notes that the Authority indicated that it had not, beyond seeking input from key officials, undertaken searches for recorded information falling within the scope of those parts of the request.
38. Specifically, the Commissioner notes that the Authority indicated that it had not carried out searches for local copies of information relating to the 2025 survey. However, it suggested that such searches would have been “moot” given the information it obtained from the Scottish Government during the investigation and that identifying local “pre-2025” information “would involve a significant manual trawl of systems”. 
39. The Commissioner therefore finds that, in failing to take adequate steps to identify and locate information falling within the scope of parts 1, 2 and 5, the Authority failed to comply with section 1(1) of FOISA.  In these circumstances, the Authority was incorrect to give the Applicant notice, in terms of section 17(1) of FOISA, that it held no information falling within the scope of parts 1, 2 and 5 of the Applicant’s request.

Part 3

40. Part 3 of the Applicant’s request asked the Authority for the specific dates on which it received the definitive lists of incoming trainee allocations from NES, in respect of specified rotational start dates over a three-year period.
41. In the circumstances, and for the reasons set out below, the Commissioner is not satisfied that the Authority fully engaged with part 3 of the Applicant’s request. In reaching this conclusion, he has carefully considered the Authority’s submissions, together with the terms of part 3 of the Applicant’s request.
42. The Authority has explained that it interpreted part 3 as seeking “specific dates” on which it received “definitive” lists.  As it received updates from NES, via TURAS, daily and lists were iterative and released when ready, the Authority did not consider it possible to point to a “definitive” list.  It also submitted that, given officials logged in to TURAS as opposed to being “sent” information, it did not hold a date of access or publication.
43. The Commissioner cannot agree that the Applicant’s request, read properly in light of the Applicant’s use of the term “definitive”, was restricted to a single “definitive” list in respect of each of the rotations specified.
44. In the Commissioner’s view, the more reasonable interpretation of “definitive” is capable, in this particular context, of including an allocation list or update which, when received by the Authority, represented NES’s allocation for the relevant rotation and provided the basis on which the Authority was expected to base rota planning for that rotation (even if later changes were made). 
45. In the circumstances, the Commissioner considers the relevant question is whether one or more lists or allocation updates for the specified rotations were received from NES which matched the description in the preceding paragraph, rather than whether NES supplied a single complete or finalised dataset or a dataset explicitly marked as “definitive”. 
46. The Commissioner notes the Authority’s submission that it received iterative updates from NES, released when ready and daily during rotation time.  In his view, that submission tends to support the possibility that the Authority might hold recorded information falling within the scope of part 3 of the Applicant’s request.
47. As stated above, the Commissioner does not consider the fact that these updates were regular or potentially subject to later change precludes one or more of those allocation lists or updates from being reasonably interpreted as providing the Authority’s basis for rota planning for that rotation.  That is, as being “definitive” for the purposes of, and in the particular context of, part 3 of the Applicant’s request.  Indeed, the Applicant clearly considered (as set out at paragraph 5 above) their request to be capable of encompassing such batches.
48. The Commissioner recognises that the distribution of those iterative lists, by NES, appears to have been by means of TURAS through which Authority officials accessed lists rather than, for example, by email.  However, he does not accept that the means by which the Authority accessed the information, rather than received it, amounts to specific dates of those lists not being held. 
49. In light of the above, the Commissioner cannot agree that the Authority was correct to interpret part 3 of the Applicant’s request as it did.  However, he must stress that part 3 of the request should not be read as extending to every update from NES.  Instead, as stated above, the Authority should consider whether any list or update provided by NES provided the basis on which the Authority was expected to base rota planning for the relevant rotations specified in the Applicant’s request.
50. In all of the circumstances, the Commissioner therefore finds that the Authority failed to correctly interpret part 3 of the Applicant’s request.  Consequently, it failed to comply with section 1(1) of FOISA. 
51. Furthermore, notwithstanding his finding that the Authority failed to correctly interpret part 3 of the Applicant’s request, the Commissioner has also not received any evidence that the Authority carried out searches for information falling within the scope of that part of the request. 
52. The Commissioner notes that guidance supplied by the Authority’s Workforce team (which he has been provided with) informed the Authority’s response to part 3 of the Applicant’s request.  That guidance, which stated that specific dates could not be provided for the reasons rehearsed at paragraph 27, appears to have resulted in the Authority electing not to carry out searches for relevant information at the time of the Applicant’s request.   
53. Furthermore, notwithstanding the Authority’s position that it did not hold definitive lists or specific dates, the Commissioner notes that during his investigation the Authority went on to consider whether partial or fragmentary information might be held, before determining that locating such information would exceed the upper cost limit under FOISA. 
54. Given the above, it is evident that the Authority did not, at any time, carry out searches in response to part 3 of the Applicant’s request.
55. As the Authority has not carried out searches for the information requested in this case, the Commissioner cannot uphold the Authority’s claim that it does not hold the requested information.  He requires the Authority to carry out fresh searches for the information, giving particular attention to paragraphs 44-45 and 47 and 49 as they relate to the proper interpretation of part 3 of the Applicant’s request.
56. For the reasons set out above, the Commissioner cannot, based on the submissions he has received, find that the Authority was correct to give the Applicant notice, in terms of section 17(1) of FOISA, that it did not hold the information requested in part 3 of their request.

Next steps

57. In summary, the Commissioner requires the Authority to reconsider parts 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the Applicant’s request, carry out adequate, proportionate searches for the information, reach a decision on the basis of those searches and notify the Applicant of the outcome (all in terms of section 21 of FOISA).
58. Given the Authority’s submissions at paragraphs 22 and 28, the Commissioner would also remind public authorities that information does not need, in every case, to be complete before it can be considered for disclosure.  Provisions exist in FOISA which permit authorities to charge for responding to information requests or to refuse to comply with requests where the authority considers the cost of doing so would be excessive or would otherwise be manifestly unreasonable.  However, where an authority seeks to rely on such provisions, it must be able to demonstrate that the relevant statutory tests are met.
59. If the Authority, as it has indicated in its submissions, considers section 12(1) of FOISA may be engaged in relation to any part of the Applicant’s request, then it must be prepared to justify this.  In particular, it should explain how any cost estimate has been calculated and why the estimated cost of complying would exceed the upper cost limit under FOISA. 

Decision 

The Commissioner finds that the Authority failed to comply with Part 1 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) in responding to the information request made by the Applicant. 

Specifically, the Commissioner finds that the Authority failed to comply with Part 1 of FOISA (in particular, section 1(1)) by not correctly interpreting parts 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the Applicant’s request and by failing to satisfy him that it did not hold the information requested in parts 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the Applicant’s request. 

The Commissioner therefore requires the Authority to reconsider those parts of the Applicant’s request, carry out adequate and proportionate searches for the information requested in parts 1, 2, 3 and 5, reach a decision on the basis of those searches and notify the Applicant of the outcome (all in terms of section 21 of FOISA), by 14 September 2026.

Appeal

Should either the Applicant or the Authority wish to appeal against this decision, they have the right to appeal to the Court of Session on a point of law only.  Any such appeal must be made within 42 days after the date of intimation of this decision.

Enforcement 

If the Authority fails to comply with this decision, the Commissioner has the right to certify to the Court of Session that the Authority has failed to comply.  The Court has the right to inquire into the matter and may deal with the Authority as if it had committed a contempt of court.

Euan McCulloch 

Head of Enforcement 

29 July 2026