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 8 December 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 1173 contributions

|

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Freedom of Information Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 27 November 2025

Katy Clark

Yes.

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Freedom of Information Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 27 November 2025

Katy Clark

The intention behind my proposal, which has come from those who are directly involved in the process, is to speed up the process and encourage early clarification. Again, I view it as a technical amendment. There seems to be consensus that this is the right approach among those who are heavily involved in freedom of information, such as information commissioners, academics, the Campaign for Freedom of Information in Scotland and those who use freedom of information regularly. The issue was also looked at by the committee in the previous parliamentary session.

Carole Ewart might want to add something because you have raised a technical point.

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Freedom of Information Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 27 November 2025

Katy Clark

Proposed new section 41A of the 2002 act refers to section 47(1) of that act, in which a narrow set of circumstances apply. It says that a person who is dissatisfied with a notice or

“the failure of a Scottish public authority to which a requirement for review was made to give such a notice ... may make application to the Commissioner for a decision whether, in any respect specified in that application, the request for information to which the requirement relates has been dealt with in accordance with Part 1 of this Act.”

That is a very narrow set of circumstances.

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Freedom of Information Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 27 November 2025

Katy Clark

It is clear in the bill that the provision relates to information that is provided only to the commissioner and that the circumstances that are outlined in section 47(1) of the 2002 act have to apply. The provision is based on experience in practice that this can become an issue, and it would assist the Scottish Information Commissioner in their work if the exemption was allowed. On that basis, it is a reasonable request from those who have worked in the commissioner’s office.

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Freedom of Information Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 27 November 2025

Katy Clark

That is for consistency; the view is that there would be a firewall. The repeal would mean greater accountability and consistency in the implementation of the legislation. That is the thinking behind it. [Interruption.]

Carole Ewart is pointing out to me that other regulators investigate themselves, so it is not a new approach—it would adhere to that general principle.

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Freedom of Information Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 27 November 2025

Katy Clark

The examples that were used would all be covered in other ways. I cannot envisage why the power would be required, but, if the Scottish Government had strong views on the matter, it could lodge amendments at stage 2. The evidence that we have taken and the views from stakeholders show that the power is not required. There is strong support for its removal.

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Freedom of Information Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 27 November 2025

Katy Clark

The position is very similar to the other examples that have been put to me. Although I hope that it would never be used, this is another provision that is intended to be a deterrent and to help drive organisations to deliver on their legal functions and statutory obligations.

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Freedom of Information Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 27 November 2025

Katy Clark

Yes.

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Freedom of Information Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 27 November 2025

Katy Clark

A large part of the cost of the bill will lie with the Information Commissioner. That has been fully costed, because the commissioner will be the main driver of the implementation of the bill. Many people in the FOI community would say that the bill will not cost anything, because it simply requires organisations to do what they should be doing anyway. For example, in relation to training, there is already a statutory obligation on public authorities to update training on an annual basis. Some people would argue that the bill should not require any more money, because that work should be happening anyway.

However, we have not framed the financial memorandum on that basis, and we recognise that how organisations respond will vary. Some organisations might spend a huge amount of money on trying to implement the bill, but others will not. That is why the Information Commissioner’s role in relation to the codes of practice is important in making it really clear to organisations what they require to do to comply with the legislation.

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Freedom of Information Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 27 November 2025

Katy Clark

We hope that, if the bill is enacted, the Scottish Government will deal with those matters more speedily and that designation will speed up. We even hope that the discussion that is taking place today will help to speed up the process of designation.

However, as you know, there is also a new mechanism in the bill that would allow a parliamentary committee to get involved, should it choose to do so. I will use the care example that is currently being looked at by the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government may come forward in the next session of Parliament with proposals to designate parts of the care sector as FOI compliant. It would be quite a big political issue if the Scottish Government were to fail to do that, and a committee of this Parliament—it would be likely to be a health committee—could decide to use its time to consider the issue. It could put out a call for evidence, take evidence from all parties, including the Scottish Government, the sector and campaign groups, come to a view and make a recommendation to Parliament, which could then debate the issue. Obviously, changes to standing orders would be required to enable that to happen.

That would require a committee to decide that it was going to use its time in that way, so it would be likely to happen only for a big political issue. I hope that the fact that the Scottish Government would know that there might be enhanced scrutiny when ministers failed to act would help to drive designations.