Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you for that. If anything comes to mind after this session, please feel free to write or to contact the clerks about it.

I highlight the penultimate paragraph in your opening statement, which I found really interesting. This is the 20th anniversary of the 2002 act coming into force. Maybe it should not have passed its 10th anniversary. As we have touched on in relation to a number of matters, there is a need for proactive publication of information. We live in a digital age, we have AI—whatever that means, and it means different things to different people—and the landscape is changing very rapidly. There seems to be a need for us to consider that as soon as the Parliament is able to.

I thank Euan McCulloch, Claire Stephen and especially David Hamilton for their attendance today and look forward to engaging in the future.

I do not disagree with any of the comments that committee members have made. I note that, on 10 January this year, we had 119 cross-party groups. CPGs form an important part of how people outside the Parliament can engage with their MSPs. Indeed, the groups often allow people to engage with the Government and to give their lived experience, expertise and views when decisions are made. However, the annual report is a really challenging and disappointing read, given the failures.

Does the committee agree to deal with the question of whether we continue to accord accreditation to those CPGs at a later date?

Members indicated agreement.

I am certainly not going to comment on your choice of ChatGPT as an artificial intelligence platform. It is interesting that, as we contemplate having an environment of positive publication with regard to freedom of information, such AI tools will be able to provide a different nuance to information that currently is quite remote and to get beyond the point of people saying, “I have this—what’s next?”. Your comments on the specific barriers that young people face and the engagement that you are doing to break those down are massively important.

That takes me back to your undertaking to review the strategic plan after 12 months. You have discussed your approach of moving from promoting the idea of freedom of information to highlighting access to it. Is that the extent to which you are reviewing the strategic plan? Now that you have been working under it as it was presented to you, are you confident that it is fit for purpose? Does it reflect where the commission wants to see itself in 12 months’ time?

That is no problem and thank you for that information. We will move to questions, and I will kick off with the fact that this is, of course, the 20th anniversary. In some ways, 1 January 2005 seems like a long time ago and, in other ways, it seems like only yesterday.

I was fascinated by your comments at the end of your opening remarks about the involvement of young people and working with the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland. We have had 20 years of a landscape where we have seen improvements—sometimes substantial, more frequently just gradual—in the legislative framework, which we will get to in a minute. Beyond engaging with the Children and Young People’s Commissioner, what thoughts have you had about engaging with young people and how to capture the importance to them of freedom of information? My experience is that they frequently ask questions to which they could get the answers on their own if they were more aware and the regime was more friendly towards young people.

Following on from that, there is the perennial question of “How well is it going?” What are the early indications of success for the strategic plan and the proposals that it contains?

Before we move to Sue Webber’s questions, I want to pose a question about your current organisational structure. In the report, you say that you have “a team of 29 people.” One of the sub-notes mentions

“the absence of the Head of Corporate Services”—

we have talked about corporate governance—and it says that

“outstanding Management Assurance has been provided by the Corporate Services Manager.”

Are you confident that the system that is operating at the moment, in the absence of the head of corporate services, matches your current requirements?

Sue, do you mind if I ask for some clarification?

In relation to when the backlog will be extinguished, you have spoken about an ideal situation in which the financial provision allows you to transfer the current investigators. Are you still confident that the backlog will be gone by May next year?

Unknown unknowns.

I was going to pass over to Joe FitzPatrick.

You will be glad to know that we are coming to the end of the session.

Interestingly, that leads on to an issue that I wanted to mention: the section 60 code of practice. I note that that is a code rather than anything else. Earlier, you spoke about the Scottish Government’s engagement on that. We have also talked about the legislative challenges.

The section 60 code can be updated and it will, I hope, be updated. Do you see that as an answer, not to some of the legislative problems but to the cultural need to change understanding about FOI, which we have discussed? Am I putting too much emphasis on the code as a possible short-term answer to that? Will it be achievable in the near future?