Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes, and it would depend on the framing of the motion that was put before the Parliament. It may depend on the circumstances, and there may well be occasions when that is part of what the Parliament is debating. There may be different views. Different political parties might take different positions about how speedily something could happen. There could be agreement on the principle, but some people might say, “This will take longer to implement,” while others might say, “No, we want this done now.” That would be a matter to be debated.

In reality, how quickly the order could be implemented and the designation made would depend on the nature of the designation, so it would be unwise to have a standard rule.

That is the hope. I was asked to take the bill forward partly as a result of frustration about the glacial progress of new designations. The hope is that, if Parliament debated such matters on a standing basis, it would move the issue higher up the agenda and lead to more designations. In such debates, ministers would probably want to be able to say that they had intentions and plans and to give commitments to the Parliament, which we hope would be honoured.

That is the intention, and section 6 has been drafted on that basis. Again, it is a technical amendment. With the bill, we have attempted to bring together all the changes that have been recommended for which there seems to be a strong body of support or a consensus, and this is one of them. The provision has been drafted by parliamentary draftspeople, and the wording in the bill is the drafting that they felt was robust. We have had alternative versions, but this is the version that we were advised was appropriate.

I think that that would be clear in the publication code that the Information Commissioner produced. Those information codes would be specific to sectors or perhaps even organisations. Their requirements should not be onerous and would depend on the organisation’s resources. This is about a culture change, not putting additional resources into functions. It is about how people use the time.

A consultation process would lead up to the publication code. Therefore, to use the specific example that you have cited of local authorities, which are a large and significant set of bodies, I imagine that there would be an intensive consultation process with them about what might be in the publication code.

The offence would be a criminal offence. The set of circumstances that are likely to lead to the Information Commissioner and the Crown Office wishing to proceed with a prosecution would probably be such that the view would be that it would be appropriate for the legislation to be in place.

I am not sure of the exact nature of the consultation that would take place in relation to the criminal offence. There might be a need for consultation in relation to proactive publication and the type of information that is published. However, in relation to the destruction of records, the threshold is so high that—

Yes—that is correct. Agents of a public authority are normally employees who are carrying out a specific function of that public authority.

Some things have been included and some things have not, because we are trying to get a consensus. I might well have wanted to have more things in the bill that have not been put in, but we are trying to make proposals on issues where there was less controversy and more consensus among stakeholders.

You are talking about one of the areas not only where there was less consensus but where issues were raised about legislative competence. Therefore, the view was that it was probably better not to include it in the bill.

There are quite a few matters that we could have included in the bill but did not, because we thought that we might run into problems and that there would be different views. We have attempted to coalesce the proposals around areas that have broad support.

Those issues could be raised at stage 2.

The hope is that the bill will lead to culture change, where more information is proactively published. As the Information Commissioner outlined last week, the codes of practice would outline the type of information that it was useful for an organisation to publish, and he would work with the organisation in relation to that.

It is also hoped that that would lead to a reduction in the number of FOI requests and, therefore, that there would be savings as a result of that cultural change, because information would already be readily available. The Information Commissioner’s office says that we can often predict the kinds of FOI requests that are going to be made. If that information was proactively published, the public would not need to rely on the FOI mechanism.

You are absolutely correct that the existing legislation requires that. Indeed, international law requires it, but the reality is that the system is not working well. The way that the legislation was framed in 2002 has meant that the system has not worked in the way that was envisaged. People who are actively involved in the sector believe that a proactive publication duty and very clear codes of practice and guidance from the Information Commissioner about what that actually means are far more effective. Indeed, that is how it is done in other countries, where it appears to be successful.