Skip to main content
Loading…

Seòmar agus comataidhean

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Criathragan Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 4 May 2021
  6. Current session: 13 May 2021 to 21 November 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 1988 contributions

|

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Decision on Taking Business in Private

Meeting date: 13 November 2025

Martin Whitfield

I have received apologies from Annie Wells, who will not be joining us this morning. I apologise to her and to those watching for not saying that at the outset.

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Freedom of Information Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 13 November 2025

Martin Whitfield

So, this is the right time for the change and there is an imperative that it happens in this parliamentary session rather than waiting—

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Freedom of Information Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 13 November 2025

Martin Whitfield

Before I turn to Chris Milne, I have a question about the period in which a prosecution must take place. There is a proposal for that to be three years, with that period running from start of the criminal investigation rather than from the date of the offence. What is the Law Society’s view on that?

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Freedom of Information Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 13 November 2025

Martin Whitfield

We should always ask the experts.

Chris, what is your view of that potential criminal offence?

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Freedom of Information Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 13 November 2025

Martin Whitfield

The Law Society’s written evidence raised the issue of parliamentary time for scrutiny. Fiona Stuart, what are your comments on that, given where we are in the session?

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Freedom of Information Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 13 November 2025

Martin Whitfield

Just for the public record, which areas do we need to scrutinise more today?

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Freedom of Information Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 13 November 2025

Martin Whitfield

In essence, there is an exchange of data, which makes it sensible to do it that way. That is not dissimilar to the proposal in the bill. That is helpful.

Fiona Stuart, you have provided us with an excellent contents page for what we will cover today. I will move to the aspect of offences. There is a proposal to create an offence of altering records with the specific intent of preventing disclosure. What are the challenges in that regard?

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Freedom of Information Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 13 November 2025

Martin Whitfield

I have a question for Gordon Martin. Dr Meechan said that, in his experience, there has been a reduction in the reliance on commercial sensitivity reasons to block freedom of information requests. Is that your experience, too? Have you seen a decline in refusals of your requests on the ground of commercial sensitivity, or is your experience different?

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Freedom of Information Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 13 November 2025

Martin Whitfield

That is helpful.

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Freedom of Information Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 13 November 2025

Martin Whitfield

Does the cost of all that outweigh the value of having primary legislation that says that it would be an offence for someone to deliberately destroy or remove from access something that they knew to be worrying? Can we live with failing to put that up as a principle that all public servants—and professionals—should deal with?