Seòmar agus comataidhean

I fully recognise those points, which would be a matter for the committee system. Presumably, something would have to be seen by the committees as a political priority. In the aftermath of Covid, care homes might have been considered a political priority and an area that a parliamentary committee would identify to launch an inquiry into, whereas that is far less likely to happen for areas on which there is perhaps less public attention.

My proposal is to make available an additional mechanism, which would strengthen the role of the Parliament to hold the Government to account.

Do you mean the section 5 reports to the Parliament?

It could be in standing orders. It might be something that the relevant committee would look at. For example, in the case of a large sector, the committee might have a view on the timetable for implementation. In the case of a single body and a relatively discrete matter, the committee might take the view that implementation could happen either immediately or very quickly—say, within a month, three months or six months. I do not think that it would be appropriate to put that in the bill, because it would depend on the designation.

I thank the committee for allowing me to appear today and for the work that you are undertaking to scrutinise this member’s bill. I also take the opportunity to thank all those who have engaged with the process: those who responded to both consultations, those who attended events, those who met me to discuss the bill and those who have taken part in the committee’s proceedings. In particular, I thank Carole Ewart, from the Campaign for Freedom of Information in Scotland, who has worked with me throughout the process, and the Scottish Information Commissioner and his office, who have worked with us on some of the details.

The bill attempts to bring together work that has been carried out over a number of parliamentary sessions and the recommendations of the four Scottish Information Commissioners who have been appointed since the Freedom of Information Act (Scotland) Act 2002 was enacted. The bill contains a set of specific technical proposals, which have considerable support; it also makes provision to give the Parliament a power through its committee system that could lead to a parliamentary vote to designate a body.

The Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee’s review of the 2002 act, which was conducted in the previous parliamentary session, made recommendations that are included in the bill, such as the introduction of a “pause the clock” mechanism and recommendations to ensure proactive disclosure in a more systematic and accessible format for the public.

Successive Information Commissioners have consistently recommended modernising the operation of FOISA, including expanding FOI coverage to more public functions, improving record keeping and information management, and enhancing the commissioner’s power to ensure compliance.

The bill is also a recognition that rights have been lost in many sectors due to outsourcing. My bill seeks to reflect on the practical recommendations that have been made, and we have attempted to respond to, and reflect in the bill’s provisions, the issues that have been raised by stakeholders during the process. I had a number of meetings with the former minister during the process.

Carole Ewart and I are happy to answer questions.

I will focus on the issues that you specifically mentioned.

People have argued, over many years, for proactive publication, and it has been recommended by Information Commissioners and other stakeholders who work regularly with freedom of information. The proposals around proactive publication are also based on what has happened in other jurisdictions. The view is that, although the 2002 act was framed with the best of intentions, the reality is that the publication schemes have not worked. The proposals have been developed over many years, and there is a great deal of consensus around them among those who are interested in and engaged with the issues, who see them as a more effective way to take things forward. In particular, all four Information Commissioners support the proposals in the bill. We have moved forward on the basis of that consensus among all the stakeholders, who tend to be people who are quite actively involved in FOI.

On the new offence, I heard last week’s evidence. The new offence is in addition to offences that are already on the statute book but that are very rarely used. It is hoped that the offence will have a deterrent effect—that is how it was envisaged. It has been proposed as a result of a specific set of circumstances, but it is hoped that it will never be used. Basically, it deals with a loophole that has been discovered. Again, the proposal has the full support of the Scottish Information Commissioner’s office. Indeed, we worked with it on this and other parts of the bill to ensure that they were drafted in a way that was workable for that office.

No. We have attempted to bring together concepts and proposals that have been on the table for quite a lengthy period of time. There may well be other things that could have been included, but we have attempted to coalesce around the areas in which the Campaign for Freedom of Information in Scotland, other bodies and the Information Commissioner are in agreement. I appreciate that the Scottish Government is taking a different view on some aspects of the bill. However, when it comes to the stakeholders who have engaged with the process, what is in the bill is not necessarily what everybody wants, but it is what everybody is comfortable with.

In larger organisations, that would definitely be the case. In very small organisations—although very few of them would need to comply with the legislation—the chief executive might have that responsibility.

Well, the specific offence that is being proposed comes out of a specific set of experiences. It is a defined set of circumstances. I would argue that there is a gap in the legislation. You will be well aware, convener, that the threshold of beyond reasonable doubt for criminal conviction is high and that it would be necessary to prove intent—that somebody intended to alter documents, with the intent to prevent disclosure. The threshold would be high, and we would hope that it would never be used. However, it would make it clear to Government and officials that, if they thought a FOI application might come—because it was self-evident that that was highly likely—that material should be protected.

The time would run from the point at which any reasonable person, and perhaps everybody, would be of the view that it is likely that there might be a freedom of information request because of the nature of the material and of the issue.

It might well be that, at the time that information was destroyed, it would not have been reasonable for that person to believe that it would become a massive issue five or 10 years down the road. In those circumstances, there would not be a case to take through the courts. The provision has been envisaged and framed on the basis that the offence would be used in exceptional circumstances.

Existing offences are framed in very similar terms. The provision is mirrored on existing offences that have been in place for many years but would extend to the situation where records were altered at an earlier stage, before an FOI application was made. We know that those other offences have very rarely been used. Although we have worked in our financial memorandum on the basis that they will be used once or twice a year, that is very difficult to conceive in reality.