Seòmar agus comataidhean

Well, a person either is or is not pregnant.

Yes. If you create just one role with responsibility for something that is good across the whole organisation culturally, the rest of the organisation will go to sleep on that cultural value. That is as true of quality as it is of information.

Your response also refers to the reduction in exemptions to the 2002 act. I think that this relates to a redefinition in the proposed bill of what is FOI-able, particularly in relation to procurement—as I understand the bill—and your response to that proposal was that you are “partially opposed”. What do you mean by that?

I applaud what you have just said about transparency—that is effectively what you have been talking about. In your initial reflections to the committee this morning, you discussed how you felt that FOI was in a reasonably good place in Scotland, but that is not the same thing as saying that the culture that surrounds transparency and accountability is in a good place.

This is a difficult question, but I do not think that you will ever be in a better position to answer it, because, after only 16 weeks in post, you are brand new. What is your assessment of the overall public sector culture in respect of transparency, accountability and accessibility?

What are the obstacles to that? What is seen as a barrier by the senior echelons of public sector organisations? What is the downside?

Do you have all the powers that you need? Has Parliament granted you everything that you need to create that leverage? Have you got the leverage?

We need to give St George a bigger spear to take on the dragon.

But culture—

I am concerned about how you deal with the immovable object. You mentioned the new head of the civil service in Scotland, John Paul Marks, who is much more amenable to this whole cultural approach than might have been the case previously.

In that respect, I am thinking of the example of James Hamilton. I am not going to ask you to comment on anything specific, but the overall principle was that a member of the public sought an FOI and the whole thing ended up in the Supreme Court, where it was finally disclosed that the Scottish Government had not told the truth about what it did and did not have, and there was then a ruling about what was FOI-able. In fact, there is an update on the matter in today’s newspapers.

I know that you have not commented on this and I will respect however you choose to respond to what I am saying, but I note that, in relation to the possibility of a further appeal to you, the Scottish Government has said that you have

“confirmed the requirements for the decision notice of the Supreme Court have been complied with”.

Do you agree that that sets the stage for tackling the immovable object? What exactly happens in a situation in which you, as commissioner, now have a new definition of what is FOI-able in relation to this specific case but in which the holder of information says that they will not disclose any more information? What exactly do you do, given the limits on your resources?

Have they done a review?

How many freedom of information requests did you say there had been? Was it 80,000?