Seòmar agus comataidhean

In general, it would be a matter for committees themselves, but including the detail in the standing orders could be an option. It is the transparency of the process that would ensure whether it was robust. All stakeholders—the sector, private bodies, representative bodies and the Scottish Government—would be involved and would have the opportunity to make representations. It would be a far more transparent and, I would argue, robust process because of the public scrutiny that it would involve. However, it would be an additional mechanism; it would not be instead of the existing mechanisms.

It is a hard question. Sometimes, the designation might be for only one small body that employs a relatively small number of people and does not work with a considerable amount of money; the Parliament might take the view, for political or other obvious reasons, that it should be compliant with the FOI legislation. At other times, the designation might be for a massive sector. Therefore, it is difficult to say, because it depends on the proposed designation, how much evidence is involved and how complex that is.

Very much so.

Yes. The bill was taken forward as a result of frustration with the Government’s failure to act. After a great deal of lobbying to try to get the Government to come forward with recommendations, Carole Ewart from the Campaign for Freedom of Information Scotland asked me whether I would be willing to take forward a member’s bill.

I am concerned. The bill is in the same position as a number of members’ bills. That is not the fault of any individual member; unfortunately, the Parliament is not geared up to provide support to members. I would have preferred it if the bill had come before the committee earlier in the parliamentary session, but my view is that there is still time.

I have met with the Government a number of times over the years during the bill process, but I have not really had feedback until it made a submission to the committee last week. I have had a great deal of feedback from other stakeholders, and we reflected that in the drafting of the bill.

The original draft bill, which the Campaign for Freedom of Information in Scotland presented to me, has been amended quite substantially to take into account the views of stakeholders, including those who could be designated under the bill and the office of the Information Commissioner.

The policy intention behind the bill is not to add costs. As you will be aware, the 2002 act does not require anybody to create any new information; the requirement is simply to provide information that already exists. However, the intention of the bill is to effect a culture change with regard to proactive publication, and the view is that that will reduce costs.

The committee will have heard that, in itself, the bill will not automatically lead to any new designations. However, if there were new designations, those bodies would also be required to conform to proactive publication.

The view is that the codes of practice on proactive publication that would come from the Information Commissioner would make it very clear to organisations what they would require to do to comply with the duties, but obviously that would apply only to information that already exists. I know that the Information Commissioner spoke last week about the consequences that could flow from proactive publication, which could lead to organisations providing information in a different way and in more of a standard data format. Every committee in the Parliament would probably recognise that as an issue.

As you know, the legislation does not require new information to be provided. I hope that proactive publication would make it easier for the public to get information, reduce the number of FOI requests and ensure that any FOI requests were cheaper to process.

The intention is a cultural change and not to require organisations to get new staff. There is not a policy intention or a wish that organisations should get more staff to perform the function. It is more about how existing—

The 2002 act requires only information that already exists to be provided. There would not be a requirement to create new information, but there may be a requirement, working with the Information Commissioner over time, to publish information that already exists in a more readily accessible way, automatically, before there is a request.

The proposal comes from FOI officers themselves. It has been discussed for many years, since long before I became involved in the issue.

Often, freedom of information officers are also data protection officers. They see how that function operates; it has a statutory basis. The provisions in the bill have been mirrored on the provisions of data protection legislation. FOI officers say that, when they are data protection officers, their organisation complies with the law and with their requests; however, when it comes to freedom of information, because they do not have the statutory authority, it is sometimes very difficult for them to get their organisation to comply with that legislation. They believe that, if they had the same statutory footing for freedom of information as they have as a data protection officer, they would be able to perform their functions better. That is the rationale.

Because, often, someone is a data protection officer and an FOI officer, I cannot imagine that there would be a grading issue. The policy intention is not to create new roles—although we have had to detail that in our financial memorandum—but to give more authority to those who are already doing the work, which would, I hope, lead to savings, because their requests will be complied with, rather than their having to go through an extended and lengthy process before information is released. The purpose of the provision is to empower those who are attempting to deliver on the 2002 act.

No, this is not a retrospective piece of legislation.