You have asked us for the following information:
1. Can I please see a copy of the independent expert report submitted by DGHP to the regulator?
2. Can I please see a copy of all correspondence between the SHR and DGHP on the subject of its award of the contract to R&D?
3. Who was the independent expert commissioned by DGHP?
4. What was the brief that the SHR gave DGHP on the perimeters of the independent investigation?
5. What direct contact, or attempted contact has the SHR had with DGHP tenants over allegations of substandard housing built by R&D Construction?
6. What direct contact, or attempted contact has the SHR had with local councillors or businesses who have raised issues over the aborted R&D social housing renewal contract?
7. Why did the SRH ask DGHP to appoint its own investigator?
8. Is it normal practice for the SHR to subcontract investigations to housing associations/registered to the social landlords who are themselves the subject of external complaint/criticism/allegations?
9. Can I please see a copy of the Audit Scotland-commissioned D&GC's external auditor's report into the council's role in the award of the 2009 contract to R&D?
10. Did the SHR require DGHP to fund the cost of the independent investigation into itself, or did it provide funds for this?
11. What was the cost of the investigation?
12. Given what happened in the case of R&D and DGHP has the SHR considered rethinking its guidelines on the award of construction companies for building social.
Question 1
Section 25 of the Act: Information otherwise accessible, applies. Section 25(1) applies because some of the information we hold is otherwise accessible to you. The report, “Investigation into the procurement process for R&D Construction Limited” is available from: www.dghp.org.uk.
Question 2
Please see documents 1 and 2, 5 to 7 inclusive, 9 to 20 inclusive, and 22 to 24 inclusive in pdf attached below. Section 25(1): Information otherwise accessible also applies because some of the information we hold is otherwise accessible to you.
In addition, the legal advice obtained in respect of all correspondence between SHR and DGHP on the subject of its award of the contract to R & D is exempt under section 36(1), as a claim to confidentiality of communications could be maintained in legal proceedings.
We maintain that it would be harmful to the public interest if solicitors and clients could not discuss relevant issues and give and receive legal advice in confidence. Disclosure of legal advice so directly connected to the Scottish Housing Regulator's function would have a restraining and suppressive effect and would substantially hinder the ability of the SHR to communicate freely, frankly and fully with their legal advisers about any developments being introduced which would affect the core business of the SHR. In addition, A public body should be permitted to communicate its position to its advisers fully and frankly in confidence, in order to obtain the most comprehensive legal advice to defend its position adequately should that become necessary. There is also an argument for confidentiality to ensure that public bodies are able to defend their legal interests and that they are not prejudiced by inappropriate disclosure of information or legal analysis. For these reasons we believe the public interest not to release is stronger than the public interest served by release of these documents.
This has been recognised by both the Scottish Information Commissioner and the courts - see, House of Lords case, Three Rivers District Council and others v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (2004) UKHL 48. We recognise that there is some public interest in release as part of open and transparent government, and to inform public debate.
However, this is outweighed by the strong public interest in maintaining the right to confidentiality. Our concern would be that the disclosure of legal advice may result in a reluctance to seek advice in future and may result in decisions which are legally unsound and open to challenges which may otherwise have been avoided.
Consequently, without such comprehensive advice, the quality of decision making would be reduced which would be contrary to the public interest. It is also in the public interest that public bodies and we as a Regulator receive appropriate legal advice to ensure its actions and decisions are taken in an appropriate legal context.
Question 3
Beever and Struthers, Chartered Accountants and Business Advisors.
Question 4
SHR did not provide a brief to DGHP but we provided comments on DGHP’s brief. Please see documents 12, 13 and 14.
Question 5
Please see documents 1,2,3 and 4 in the attached below.
Question 6
There is no information held relating to direct contact or attempted contact with local councillors or businesses but in the spirit of the Act we have enclosed copies of correspondence with MSPs. Please see documents 21 and 21A.
Question 7
There is no information held relating to this request.
Question 8
There is no information held relating to this request.
Question 9
There is no information held relating to this request.
Question 10
DGHP paid for the independent investigation and we did not provide funds.
Question 11
£5,400.
Question 12
There is no information held relating to this request.
Document attached - word