Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

The advice that I had was that it was sufficiently clear. However, I am open to amendments. The provision is a technical amendment, so if the view is that it is not sufficiently belt and braces, there is scope to amend it. We are very amenable to discussions.

I will bring in Carole Ewart on that, because she has done a huge amount of work on the issue.

I think that the Scottish Information Commissioner gave some real examples in relation to that last week. The intention is to ensure that the person who seeks the information gets the information that they are entitled to. The amendment to the 2002 act would enable the Scottish Information Commissioner to assist in that process, so an exemption is appropriate in order to enable the legislation’s intentions to be delivered. The Information Commissioner spoke about real examples last week.

As was outlined in last week’s evidence, we must give power to the Information Commissioner. All the evidence seems to suggest that their having power acts as a deterrent and ensures that bodies comply with their requirements. In effect, that is a way of policing the bill’s implementation.

The provision that you have just raised, the offences under the 2002 act and the new offence that the bill proposes are in place not because we believe that they would be used regularly—we hope that they would never be used—but as a deterrent and to give power to the Information Commissioner.

I know that the commissioner gave a specific example last week of using his powers to ensure that there was compliance before having to take formal steps. There was another example of that in the newspapers this week. I hope that, although the bill would give the Information Commissioner powers, that does not mean that they would have to be used. However, those powers would ensure that public bodies complied with reasonable and lawful requests that were being made.

Last week was the first time that we have had a detailed response from the Scottish Government, so we have not really been able to take its views into account before. There has been a consensus that, because the power has never been used, it should be removed, and that, with regard to public trust, it is inconsistent to have that power in place. At the end of the day, those matters are political, but proposals have been made over many years that the power should be taken away because it is not needed.