Freedom of Information (Scottish Government Request Handling and Record Keeping)

– in the Scottish Parliament at on 20 June 2018.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Christine Grahame Christine Grahame Scottish National Party

The next item of business is a debate on motion S5M-12861, in the name of Rhoda Grant, on a review of Scottish Government freedom of information request handling and record keeping.

Photo of Rhoda Grant Rhoda Grant Labour

The intervention report from the Scottish Information Commissioner exposes the utter contempt in which this Scottish National Party Government holds the freedom of information law.

In publishing that damning report, the Scottish Information Commissioner has done the principle of openness and transparency a great service, and I truly hope that the report is a wake-up call for the Scottish Government.

FOI legislation was enacted to make Government more transparent and to improve scrutiny, yet this Government has done the opposite. It refuses to be held to account and it refuses to be scrutinised. In the Scottish Parliament, questions—particularly written questions—get poor and evasive answers, so members are forced to use the FOI legislation to get the answers that they should have been provided with in the Parliament. However, the Scottish Government seeks to block that as well. It singles out journalists and MSPs and their researchers for special treatment. FOI requests are subject to greater scrutiny and sign-off and are less likely to get answers, and those answers that are provided take longer to receive.

The report states:

“by creating and applying a process based on requester type rather than the nature of the request, not only is the spirit of FOI legislation offended, but trust between those groups mentioned in the policy and the Scottish Government may also be damaged.”

This is not just important to those of us in the political bubble. It is important to hold the Government to account and to understand how and why decisions are made and who influences why they are made. Meetings that Government ministers have taken part in are matters of public interest and national importance. We are calling, therefore, for an independent review of how the Government handles FOI requests and its overall record keeping, which is another area in which it has fallen short.

For example, we have a transport minister meeting the chief executives of both Stagecoach and FirstGroup with no minutes being taken, nor any agenda being prepared. We have a First Minister, alongside her finance secretary, her education secretary and her economy secretary, inviting a host of business figures to dinner at Bute house, including SNP donor Brian Souter, again with no minutes or agenda. It is outrageous that Scottish Government ministers think that they can have such covert meetings and ride roughshod over FOI legislation and indeed the law.

That means that even the Scottish Information Commissioner is unable to track the Government’s behaviour and decision-making process. The report states:

“Where data was absent or unclear, it was excluded from our analysis.”

Therefore, the report is based only on the findings from the Government’s better record keeping. We can only guess what is being covered up by its worst. Whether by intent or negligence, poor record keeping in the very process that was enshrined in law to make Government more transparent makes it less so, and that is extremely disappointing.

The Scottish Information Commissioner’s report states that he cannot be clear what role special advisers have with regard to FOI. Their involvement varies between departments, and he states that there is little guidance on their role and whether it impacts on responses that are given. We all know that special advisers have a more political role in helping Government, but that should not allow them to evade the law or indeed the spirit of the FOI legislation.

If information that is requested is available and is not subject to any legal exclusion, it must be provided. That is the letter and the spirit of the FOI legislation, and it must be adhered to. It is simply wrong that a Government that should be leading the way and providing a good example has behaved in the way that it has, and it must stop now.

Photo of Stewart Stevenson Stewart Stevenson Scottish National Party

I speak as someone who ceased to be a minister six years ago and who, for three years after being a minister, continued to be asked for confirmation about FOI responses. Who in Government should be the person who contacts people such as me, who are no longer in Government, in order to ensure that the FOI responses that are being made are being checked?

Photo of Rhoda Grant Rhoda Grant Labour

It is surely for the minister to ensure that his answer to an FOI request is right because, ultimately, the Government is responsible. If a minister needs to depend on a special adviser to help them to hide information, that is not good for governance or transparency.

If the answer to a request will disclose information that embarrasses the Government, it is the Government’s job to answer that request and to put right the wrong that has been uncovered—not to seek to hide it, which would be not only underhand and evasive but illegal. If poor record keeping is being used to disguise such an approach, that is even worse. The question also arises whether the additional level of scrutiny delays answers to journalists, MSPs and MSPs’ staff or whether there is a culture of deliberately delaying the provision of information to such people to kill a story or a line of inquiry.

The report talks about the lack of training for staff who deal with FOI requests. There appears to be no formal training, which is surely untenable. Those staff need to be trained in meeting their legal obligation to ensure transparency, and surely they must also be trained in how to provide the information in an accessible way. It is unbelievable that more than 1,000 people in the Government are involved in FOI work but have no formal training. We strongly suggest that that should be put right as soon as possible.

All those problems stack up to create a pretty damning report. There is little that is good in the report—the only thing that stands out is that an improvement has taken place, but it happened only after the Information Commissioner stepped in, and it does not go far enough. If that is what improvement looks like, we can only imagine how bad the situation was previously.

The catalogue of errors reflects poorly on the Government. We expected the report to describe some failings in the system, but it shows failing after failing. Those failings might not always have occurred with intent, but carelessness is hardly an excuse when it prevents proper governmental scrutiny by Opposition parties, back benchers and the press.

The Government’s amendment would remove from our motion the concerns that are expressed in the report. That is disappointing, because it shows a lack of understanding of the findings’ seriousness. The Government talks of consulting on extending FOI legislation to companies that provide services on the public sector’s behalf. We support that extension, but the Government must go further than consulting—it must commit to legislating on the consultation’s outcome. It also has to put its house in order, so that we have confidence in the system and in its extension to non-governmental service providers.

We need a new approach to FOI—one that we can be confident about; one that can withstand independent scrutiny; and, most important, one that adheres to the letter and the spirit of the law.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

If you want your motion to be voted on, you had better move it.

Photo of Rhoda Grant Rhoda Grant Labour

I move,

That the Parliament notes the concerns raised on Scottish Government transparency in the intervention report from the Scottish Information Commissioner; notes the key findings that the Scottish Government’s FoI policies and procedures are not clear enough regarding the role of special advisers in responding to FoI requests; believes that the Scottish Government takes longer to respond to journalists’ FoI requests than other requests; considers that a number of areas have been highlighted for action, including clearance procedures, quality assurance of FoI responses, training, case handling and case records management, monitoring FoI requests and review procedures, and calls for an independent review of both FoI handling and the recording of information from meetings.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

I call Joe FitzPatrick, who has a tight six minutes.

Photo of Joe FitzPatrick Joe FitzPatrick Scottish National Party

In speaking to the amendment in my name, I thank Rhoda Grant for giving us the opportunity to further debate the Scottish Information Commissioner’s intervention report. The debate allows me to set out the improvements that are being put in place to ensure that our processes and performance meet the highest standards that are required and expected of us.

The Parliament can—rightly—be proud of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. The act is rigorous and is well regarded internationally, and we have sought to maintain that position with incremental changes to the act—for example, the Freedom of Information (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2013 paved the way for reducing the lifespans of key exemptions from 30 to 15 years. The 2002 act has also been extended to bring within its scope numerous bodies, including arm’s-length trusts, providers of secure accommodation for children and young people and private prison contractors.

The Scottish Government takes our FOI commitments seriously, and the Scottish Information Commissioner’s intervention report, which was published last week, was a serious assessment of our FOI handling processes. I am pleased that the report identifies examples of good practice, but it also highlights areas in which improvements in processes are needed. As I informed members last week, the Scottish Government has accepted the recommendations of the report and will develop an action plan by 13 September this year.

Photo of Joe FitzPatrick Joe FitzPatrick Scottish National Party

I will make some progress, if that is okay.

Turning to today’s motion and its call for an independent review of FOI handling, I hope that no member doubts the independence of the Scottish Information Commissioner and his staff. Indeed, in responding to calls last year for an independent inquiry into Scottish Government request handling, the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee agreed that the commissioner might be an appropriate person to undertake such an inquiry. Therefore, I am slightly surprised that today’s motion appears to call for another independent review of FOI handling. Perhaps the Labour Party is unconvinced of the commissioner’s independence.

Photo of Neil Findlay Neil Findlay Labour

Before the minister moves on, will he tell members how many times his Government has broken the law in relation to FOI?

Photo of Joe FitzPatrick Joe FitzPatrick Scottish National Party

Neil Findlay makes a point that Andy Wightman raised during last week’s statement. They imply that the report suggested that the Government broke the law, but that was not a conclusion that the report came to. The commissioner’s inquiry was a level 3 intervention under section 43(1) and section 43(3) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, which relate to “good practice”. It is my intention, and I am determined, that the Scottish Government will become an exemplar in best practice, and this report will help us to achieve that aim.

As reflected in the Labour motion, the commissioner’s report highlights a number of areas in which action is required, including clearance, training, case handling and records management. The report is thorough and is being considered in detail by officials.

However, as I notified members last week, we have revised guidance on our clearance processes with immediate effect, so where, in some of the language that Rhoda Grant used, “This is what we do”, it is now “That is what we did.” I have signed off new guidance that changes our processes on those matters. That directly addresses the report’s recommendation 3, on the treatment of requests being based on the class of the requester rather than on the sensitivity of the information that is sought. Our revised guidance, which is in the public domain, as is all our guidance, makes clear that consideration should be based on the information that is requested, rather than the identity of the requester.

In addition, in addressing issues that were raised in recommendations 4 and 6, we anticipate that the introduction of a new tracker system and the updating of the Scottish Government’s electronic records management system should significantly improve request monitoring and record keeping.

I confirm again that the agreed action plan will be published and I am sure that the Scottish Information Commissioner will make public any report into the Scottish Government’s implementation of the action plan. Therefore, we will support the Conservative Party’s amendment tonight. The commissioner also noted concerns about the case file and record keeping of case handlers, and we will address the commissioner’s concerns about record keeping in developing our action plan.

A vast amount of information is proactively published by the Scottish Government on its website, which includes Government spend data and a range of ministerial information. I am pleased to announce that, from July, that will include ministerial travel and subsistence expenses.

My amendment confirms that the Scottish Government accepts the commissioner’s recommendations in full and will develop an action plan by the September deadline. The amendment also acknowledges that improvements are required on response times to journalists’ FOI requests. As set out in the commissioner’s report in 2017-18, the average response time to media requests was 19 days compared with 17 days to non-media requests. We will fix that.

As well as through the Freedom of Information (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2013, the Scottish Government has sought to ensure that our FOI legislation remains fit for purpose by bringing forward two orders that extend coverage of the act. We have also consulted on a draft order that would extend coverage of the 2002 act to registered social landlords. The terms of that order are currently being finalised.

However, against a backdrop of an ever-changing public service delivery landscape, where services that were traditionally provided by public authorities are now being provided by the third sector or private contractors, I am conscious of increasing demands to look again at the scope of coverage of the legislation. In particular, I credit the Liberal Democrats for keeping the issue of coverage on the radar. We will therefore develop proposals to consult on further extension of coverage of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, for example to companies that carry out services on behalf of the public sector.

Our proposals will reflect changes in the delivery of public services—

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

I am sorry, minister, you must conclude.

Photo of Joe FitzPatrick Joe FitzPatrick Scottish National Party

—and help to ensure that FOISA remains fully effective in holding to account those who are responsible for delivering public services. I urge members to support our amendment.

I move amendment S5M-12861.2, to leave out from “a number of areas” to end and insert:

“response times for journalists’ FoI requests have improved but can improve further; notes that the Scottish Government has accepted the commissioner’s recommendations in full and will develop an action plan as required by the commissioner to be published in September 2018; welcomes the proposed extension of FoI law to registered social landlords, and agrees that the Scottish Government should consult on proposals to further extend coverage of Scotland’s freedom of information legislation, for example, to companies providing services on behalf of the public sector.”

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

I am sorry, but we are very short of time—there is no time in hand. I call Edward Mountain to speak to and move amendment S5M-12861.1. You have five minutes, please.

Photo of Edward Mountain Edward Mountain Conservative

Tony Blair, the architect of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, later said of his creation:

“Freedom of information. Three harmless words. I look at those words as I write them, and feel like shaking my head till it drops off my shoulders. You idiot. You naïve, foolish, irresponsible nincompoop.”

The former Prime Minister went on to say:

“Where was Sir Humphrey when I needed him?”

I am no supporter of Tony Blair—nor, indeed, of Sir Humphrey—and I firmly believe that the Freedom of Information Act 2000 strengthens our democracy and is intrinsic to holding the Government of the day to account. The Scottish Government might not like that, but that is democracy. It is why I would like to move the amendment in my name, which calls on the Scottish Information Commissioner to publish an annual report into the Scottish Government’s performance in handling FOI requests.

I encourage all members to support my amendment, which seeks to strengthen scrutiny and would ensure that the Scottish Government was made accountable for its performance every year.

Photo of Andy Wightman Andy Wightman Green

The amendment talks about making

“public the report on the government’s implementation of the action plan when approved annually.”

The commissioner has committed to publishing the action plan that is provided, but I am not aware that he is committed to publishing an annual implementation plan. Can the member clarify that?

Photo of Edward Mountain Edward Mountain Conservative

It is not my understanding that the commissioner has agreed to publish it annually—that is the point that I am making. I would like to see it published annually, so that we can see how the Government is performing.

The investigation by the Scottish Information Commissioner that we have been talking about came about because of a motion that I lodged last year, which condemned the Government’s performance in handling FOIs and called for the independent inquiry. That motion led to the Government condemning itself—we should never forget that.

The resulting report is a damning indictment that shows the true scale of the issue: a Government is trying to cover its tracks and bury bad news. If the problem is not the paucity of information in case files it is the unwarranted interference from special advisers. I, for one, am deeply uncomfortable with the way in which special advisers are used by this Government, having experienced their reprehensible behaviour during the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Bill.

In his report, the Scottish Information Commissioner rightly questions why SPADs are checking FOI responses before they are released. The SPADs say that they can advise but they cannot instruct. How many are sticking to that code? To me, it seems that the shadowy fingers of SPADs mark many FOI responses.

One example in the report shows a SPAD saying to the case handler:

“Grateful if you could reconsider the information you propose to release”.

Presiding Officer, if you said words to that effect to me in this chamber, I would take it as an instruction, and so would most people. The SPAD knew exactly what they were doing—they were giving an instruction.

Photo of Stewart Stevenson Stewart Stevenson Scottish National Party

Is that an instruction that the provider of information look further, to ensure that there is no additional information to be provided, or is it meant in some other way?

Photo of Edward Mountain Edward Mountain Conservative

The way in which it is phrased gives a clear indication of what is to be achieved. It does not ask for more information; it asks about what information is to be released and whether that is right.

It appears to me that the Government’s guidance on handling FOls is lacking and that special advisers are constantly overstepping the mark and undermining the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

My colleagues who are sitting beside me and the journalists who are watching the debate will all have examples of freedom of information requests having been delayed or ignored. There is clear evidence that this Government treats FOI requests from MSPs and journalists differently, which goes against the applicant-blind principle of FOI laws. When it comes to FOIs, we should all be treated the same.

This Scottish Government is based on secrecy and control. MSPs and journalists know that getting information from this Government is like drawing blood from a stone. They have to ask the right questions, and probably a sequence of them, before they get the information that they have reasonably requested. It is deeply disingenuous that we are forced to play a cynical game to get information that should be in the public domain.

Democracy is not a game. Democracy requires Governments to be open, transparent and accountable. It is time that the Scottish Government was democratic.

I move amendment S5M-12861.1, to insert at end:

“, and further calls on the Scottish Information Commissioner to make public the report on the government’s implementation of the action plan when approved annually.”

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

There is no time in hand, so I will be strict with timings. Andy Wightman, you have four minutes.

Photo of Andy Wightman Andy Wightman Green

I welcome the debate and endorse everything in the Labour motion.

It seems unkind to be here again, giving the Government another kicking, but I hope that this debate, which was engendered by the concerns of journalists over a year ago, will reinforce the importance of freedom of information.

The intervention report makes sobering reading. I commend the commissioner and his staff for a comprehensive piece of work that, beyond the specific case that is being investigated, shines a useful light on Scotland’s freedom of information regime more generally.

In response to Neil Findlay’s intervention, I note that paragraph 140 of the report says:

“There is nothing in FOI law or the Section 60 Code of Practice which permits authorities to treat certain groups of requesters less preferentially than others.”

I remind the Government that it can do only what is permitted by law. Notwithstanding that, I commend ministers for having accepted all the recommendations. Scottish ministers represent the most powerful public body in Scotland, and the FOl regime was introduced to enable the public to have greater access to information that is held by elected bodies and public authorities.

FOl is uncomfortable for those with power, but it is a vital part of open and transparent governance, and I am proud that this Parliament introduced a regime that is among the best in the world. However, FOl is only a small subset of transparency. Rhoda Grant’s motion talks of records of meetings. Recently, I have been studying the Government papers in the National Archives of Scotland relating to how the Scottish Office and Scottish ministers lost control of key powers over the governance and finances of the Palace of Holyrood. I have been struck by the fact that memos, notes and letters provide great detail of the affairs of the Lord Chancellor’s office, the Lord Chamberlain, the royal household and the Scottish development department of the time. It is vital that comprehensive, meaningful, accurate and substantive records are kept of the affairs of Government and public authorities.

In that regard, I draw members’ attention to paragraph 173 of the intervention report, which says:

“The examination of Scottish Government case files revealed significant gaps in the information recorded. In many cases, there was scant information contained in case files; in some there was no documentation whatsoever.”

That is an excellent example of how even a gold-standard FOl regime can be rendered ineffective if the information does not exist.

A further example of the need for a broader debate on transparency is provided by today’s announcement of a consultation on draft regulations to establish a register of persons with a controlling interest in land. Ministers say that that information will be free, which is welcome, but the bigger problem is that, to access information on the land over which such persons have a controlling interest, one has to pay £30. Scotland’s land information system—ScotLIS—was launched last year, following a commitment by John Swinney to provide a comprehensive source of information on the ownership, use and value of land. However, it is useless. Of course, business users get an excellent service and, instead of paying £30, pay only £3. Moreover, data on land that is owned by overseas companies has been published by Registers of Scotland, but it costs more than £1,500 plus VAT to obtain, whereas the equivalent data is made freely available by the Land Registry in England and Wales, and the United Kingdom Government is committed to creating the largest open land dataset in the world.

Five years ago, some journalists and campaigners from Scotland and Ireland set up an informal FOI club, and we collaborated on methods and sources. I am now in Parliament, and Rob Edwards and other members of that club now run The Ferret, which was a key part of the campaign by journalists a year ago.

FOl matters to everyone. We need to open up all the information and data that sit behind pay walls in Government, as we are already falling behind the ambitions that have been set by the Tories at Westminster. I do not want to be in that position, and I hope that the Scottish ministers agree with me.

Photo of Willie Rennie Willie Rennie Liberal Democrat

I am grateful to the Labour Party for securing the debate, for the significant reason that it allows us to retell the story of Alex Salmond’s tartan trousers. For more than seven months, he managed to avoid telling the public exactly how he had managed to get the taxpayer to pay for a £259.40 pair of tartan trews on his visit to China. The significant point is that it took a journalist seven months and repeated freedom of information requests to get the information out of the Government.

Who really cares about Alex Salmond’s tartan trousers?

Members:

We do!

Photo of Willie Rennie Willie Rennie Liberal Democrat

I do, because it speaks to the wider problem, which is the Scottish Government’s addiction to secrecy. Even for such a simple issue as a pair of tartan trousers, it was prepared to run a campaign for seven months.

Photo of Neil Findlay Neil Findlay Labour

Although I do not really care much about Mr Salmond’s sartorial inelegance, I do care about the fact that he and other ministers go to Qatar to flog our public services to the Qatari sovereign wealth fund and we have to use freedom of information laws to find that out as well.

Photo of Willie Rennie Willie Rennie Liberal Democrat

That is absolutely right. I am sure that he bought a different pair of tartan trousers when he went to Qatar, because the other ones were not good enough.

I was intrigued by what the minister said in response to a question from a Labour member about whether the Government has ever broken the law. He dodged the question, which was intriguing. He gave an answer that was not quite an answer. I would like him, in summing up, to be clear about whether the Scottish Government has ever broken the law on freedom of information, because the dodging of the question told a bigger story.

The report is quite damning, because it shows that journalists and members of the Scottish Parliament were prevented from doing their jobs and from carrying out the scrutiny that we are elected to this Parliament to do: asking for and getting information from the Government and exposing the performance not just of ministers but of the Government as a whole. Special advisers were overruling officials to ensure that information was not being made public. Information was missing. There was a disregard for the statutory guidelines. All of that speaks to the addiction to secrecy that I mentioned.

I want to see the action plan, and I want to see progress on the action plan. Edward Mountain’s amendment is absolutely right.

Getting that right and sorting out the addiction to secrecy is not enough. Because of the expansion of outsourcing by the Government, the exposure and coverage of freedom of information legislation has been reduced. We spend about £11 billion on public procurement in the public sector. A lot of that money is spent on private companies, on which we have made some progress in the most recent set of changes although there are still a lot of private companies that are not subject to the scrutiny that they should be subject to.

I am pleased with the Government’s amendment. We worked on that amendment with the Government yesterday to ensure that it would not be defeated in Parliament today; nevertheless, it is progress. I want not just a consultation but real change and a commitment to real change, because we should be following the money. We should be following taxpayers’ money through a freedom of information regime that covers all public spending, not just what is spent strictly within the public sector.

I welcome the move today, and I welcome the fact that we are able to make some progress, but we need to make much greater progress if we are to change the addiction to secrecy that has got hold of the Scottish Government.

Photo of Daniel Johnson Daniel Johnson Labour

It is often the case that when people talk of democracy they think of voting, and when they talk of Parliament they think of powers, but the reality is that democracy and Parliament are reliant on much more than those simple narrow factors. Civil liberties, the rule of law, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the transparency of Government are all vital to the work that we do in Parliament. Government of the people for the people demands transparency, because without it we cannot know what the Government is doing in our name and in our interests.

That why the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 was such an important addition to the statute book, and it has been shown to work. From high-profile scandals to the day-to-day statistics that we use in Parliament, the act is an important part of our democracy.

The Scottish Information Commissioner’s report is so concerning because it points to Government conduct and behaviours that do not uphold that important aspect of our democracy—from a lack of clarity on request handling, to the influence of special advisers on clearance and as a filtering function, to evidence of deliberate delays of information while communications plans are put in place, to inadequate record keeping. Perhaps the most worrying finding is that there is a twin-track FOI process—for members of the public and for members of the press and MSPs.

The minister would do well to take the commissioner’s words more seriously. He said:

“changes are required for consistency with both the letter and spirit of FOI law”.

It is not good enough to dodge the question whether the law has been broken; the question is in the report for the Government to answer. The seriousness of the commissioner’s report is made clear by the fact that he requires that changes be made by September this year.

The reality is that the Scottish Government is failing to uphold the standards that we all expect of it when it comes to transparency. That is not limited to freedom of information. It is disappointing that the minister confined his remarks to freedom of information requests, because the issue is much broader than that, and includes even the most basic and fundamental matter of ministerial correspondence. Correspondence might seem to be mundane, but it is vital to the work that we do in Parliament. It is the lifeblood of what we do to gain answers and insights for our constituents.

However, the reality is that, even on correspondence, the Government is falling behind our expectations. Simple acknowledgements are taking two weeks or more to be sent, which means that constituents regularly wait for six weeks or more, and up to 10 weeks, to gain answers. It is the same old wheeze that we see time and again in the public sector: acknowledgement is delayed in order to gain more time to provide answers and observe due process.

I would like the minister to provide clarity on the Government’s view on whether it needs to do better on minutes. Understanding of who the Government is meeting and for what purposes, and of what commitments have been given when it has had meetings is vital.

I gently suggest that the Government look at the work of the mayor of London’s office. On 19 April, the deputy mayor met the deputy commissioner of the Metropolitan Police with two officials from City hall. I can tell members that because the minutes are published bi-monthly: the information is on the office’s website. That is simple and straightforward. There is not a lot of detail, but there is enough to see who was there and what was discussed. That is a simple suggestion. The approach is not very complicated, and I fail to understand why the Government cannot be open and transparent about whom it meets and when it meets them.

Photo of Ben Macpherson Ben Macpherson Scottish National Party

Like other members, I welcome the debate and its generally serious tone because, as has been said already, the transparency of the Government, public agencies and, indeed, private companies matters to us all. It is in the public interest that appropriate information can be obtained, analysed and considered. Media scrutiny of the Government is an essential part of our democratic process.

I welcome the report and remind members that we should be proud that Scotland has the most open and far-reaching freedom of information laws in the UK, and that the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 was passed by a previous Administration and has been enhanced by the SNP Government.

The report calls for greater clarity on the processes and procedures relating to FOI requests. I welcome the fact that it recognises that the Scottish Government has already taken steps in the past 12 months to improve its freedom of information practice.

The minister said that the Scottish Government accepts the commissioner’s recommendations in full—I very much welcome that, as we all should—and that it will develop an action plan, as required by the commissioner, to be published in September this year. In welcoming that action plan, I suggest that members vote for the Government’s amendment, which makes that clear.

We have today’s debate and the report’s recommendations should be taken forward—which the Government will do in full—but it is important to recognise that our freedom of information legislation is widely recognised as being robust. The Scottish Government is better at responding to FOI requests than previous Administrations and the UK Government. In 2017, 2,441 requests were answered on time, which was 83 per cent of total requests. In comparison, in the last years of the previous Administration, only 61 per cent of requests were responded to on time. Furthermore, in the first four months of 2018, the Scottish Government responded to 93 per cent of requests on time—more than the 90 per cent target that was agreed with the Scottish Information Commissioner.

That effective performance should be recognised in the context of the steady increase in freedom of information requests to the Scottish Government: 3,046 requests were received in 2017, which was 41 per cent more than the previous record of 2,155 in 2015. It is also worth noting that the Scottish Government responded last year to more than 5,000 requests—

Photo of Linda Fabiani Linda Fabiani Scottish National Party

Mr Macpherson is in his last minute.

Photo of Ben Macpherson Ben Macpherson Scottish National Party

That proactive response is outwith the freedom of information system.

I have been in touch with the minister with a written question about the draft order to extend freedom of information legislation to the register of social landlords, and received today a comprehensive response outlining the process to progress the draft order, for which I am grateful.

The Scottish Information Commissioner noted many steps that the Scottish Government has taken since last year to improve and monitor its performance with regard to freedom of information requests, including an increase in the number of staff in the freedom of information unit since 2017. It is welcome that the Government is taking forward the recommendations in full—

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

You must close, please.

Photo of Ben Macpherson Ben Macpherson Scottish National Party

I look forward to seeing the action report in September.

Photo of Oliver Mundell Oliver Mundell Conservative

This SNP Government talks about openness, accountability and transparency, but the truth is that its rhetoric does not match the reality. We need only look at yesterday’s court judgement on fracking to see the depths to which the SNP is willing to go. The people of Scotland have had enough, and deserve far better than a Government that is more interested in saving face than in providing the facts.

The information commissioner’s report is just the tip of the iceberg but, importantly, it reaffirms what many people already know: there is a casual disregard for transparency and a deep-rooted culture of arrogance about freedom of information at the highest levels of the Government.

The report makes for grim reading, and no amount of cherry picking or claims of progress can excuse the appalling practices that it identifies. I found it doubly depressing to read the report having witnessed many of the issues that it highlights during the Education Committee’s recent consideration of the Children and Young People (Information Sharing) (Scotland) Bill, when the lack of clarity and information from the Scottish Government fell below the level of transparency that both the public and Parliament should rightly expect. That situation led to a number of freedom of information requests being made; it is a sad state of affairs when parliamentarians rely on freedom of information requests to get even the most basic information out of the Government.

However, it is even worse that those requests did not elicit the full or accurate responses that one would expect. On multiple occasions since last October, I and others have sought factual information on the Scottish Government’s engagement with committee witnesses in an attempt to establish the timeline of events. On multiple occasions, the responses have been either incomplete or inaccurate.

What concerns me most is that a number of those omissions and errors relate to information that casts doubt on the original version of events that was given by John Swinney. In a number of instances, those omissions and errors have unfairly cast doubt on the actions and integrity of others. I will not make accusations that cannot yet be substantiated, but there is no denying the emerging pattern. Clearance of FOI requests has been deliberately delayed, damaging emails have been omitted due to inadequate systems and processes and, of course—my favourite—we have had the downright selective release of emails.

Astonishingly, when John Swinney wrote to the committee on 15 March, he presented a handful of pages of emails as being representative of the Government’s communication with committee clerks. Interestingly, when the Scottish Parliament was FOI-ed, we found that the equivalent correspondence runs to 70 pages and tells a completely different story. We still do not have all the answers, and I remain deeply concerned about the damage that the episode has done to Parliament. I believe that the SNP Government is let off the hook far too often.

I have not given up, and I remain convinced that it is only a matter of time until the facts come out in the wash—or, at least, in the next round of FOI requests, the round after that or the one after that. If we keep going with the Scottish Government, emails eventually turn up and new information comes to light that is never very favourable to the Government.

That is just one example of the SNP’s secret Scotland. My experience and exasperation give me a great deal of sympathy with the concerns that journalists and other MSPs have raised, which is why I urge colleagues across the chamber to send the Government, at decision time, the message that enough is enough.

Photo of Alex Rowley Alex Rowley Labour

The building that we stand in today was designed in such a way as to reflect open, inclusive and transparent government. It was intended to be a space where the public could visibly see the workings of their Government and to create a shift away from the perception of the Government as something that is far removed and lives in a bubble. It is about openness, transparency and government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Freedom of information was a key step in breaking down further the barriers that the public face in seeing what their Government is doing. I assume that, when Labour introduced freedom of information, it knew that the measure could well make life more difficult for the Government but, nevertheless, Labour did so because it was the right thing to do.

That is why it is right that Labour is today highlighting the unacceptable situation that we find ourselves in, where the Scottish Information Commissioner has highlighted major flaws in the Government’s approach to handling requests for information. No matter the Government’s political colour, it has a responsibility to the people of Scotland to be consistent with the letter and the spirit of the law. The way in which the SNP Government has been dealing with information requests is not acceptable and it is right that the Parliament says so and stands up for the democratic rights of all the people of Scotland.

It is not for the SNP Government to decide who can and cannot be told or to treat requests differently based purely on who is asking. The commissioner’s report criticised the practice of referring requests to ministers for clearance simply because they came from journalists, MSPs or researchers. As the commissioner said,

“in most cases, it should not matter who asked for information.”

The commissioner also highlighted the fact that it took longer to respond to journalists’ requests and he made seven recommendations for further specific improvements to clearance procedures, quality assurance, training, case handling and records management as well as monitoring and review procedures. The message to the SNP Government is clear: it should get its act together and respect the democratic right of all the people of Scotland to access information. The Government now has an opportunity to listen to the Information Commissioner. He has given the Government the opportunity to fix the issues and we in the Parliament must demand that it does so.

I reiterate Labour’s view that the report is also an opportunity to look at ways of improving freedom of information and extending the powers to all aspects of public services in order to make Scotland a world-leading example of open and transparent democracy. We need clarity on the role of special advisers. The practice of not taking proper records and minutes of meetings must end. The Government has a chance to fix the issue, and I hope that it takes that chance.

Photo of Kate Forbes Kate Forbes Scottish National Party

Apparently, I am the relevant parliamentary liaison officer for this subject.

As a big believer in freedom of information and a former—and occasionally current—FOI request submitter, I have no problem in supporting the Government’s amendment, which states:

“the Scottish Government has accepted the commissioner’s recommendations in full and will develop an action plan as required by the commissioner to be published in September 2018”.

Despite the Opposition’s claims, the Scottish Information Commissioner’s report recognises that, in the past 12 months, the Scottish Government has already taken steps to improve its FOI practice and those changes

“have already resulted in a number of significant improvements to the Scottish Government’s FOI performance”.

That is right, because media scrutiny of the work of this or any other Government is essential to the reliability and openness of our democratic processes and should be welcomed by all of us. In this week alone, I can think of countless reports in which the press have brought to public attention the actions and behaviour of international policy makers that range from being heartbreaking to disgraceful—or both, as in the current case of the United States immigration centres. Without the work of the press, we would not know about those, there would be no outcry and there would be no pressure for change.

Back in Scotland, FOI requests are an important tool for the independent press. Scotland needs a healthy and an honest press—and never more so than at a time of conflicting reporting, social media and “fake” press.

Photo of Kezia Dugdale Kezia Dugdale Labour

If a free press is so important, why did Ms Forbes’s Government make sure that journalists were treated differently and that their requests took longer to be responded to?

Photo of Kate Forbes Kate Forbes Scottish National Party

In fact, the commissioner stated that the percentage of refused requests for journalists was lower than it was for other types of requester, at 10 per cent compared with 13 per cent.

The minister has listed the Government’s plans to make changes and to take steps to improve the FOI process further, so I want to use my time to emphasise why I think that that is important. Quite simply, FOI requests are a means of accountability. Andy Wightman used the word “uncomfortable”, which I think is an excellent one to use. Whether I speak as an elected politician or not, or as a member of the party of Government or a member of the Opposition, I value the legitimately uncomfortable scrutiny of the press. I value it both locally, and nationally, and—

Photo of Kate Forbes Kate Forbes Scottish National Party

I have only four minutes.

I have worked hard to support the local papers in my own rural Highland constituency, including the

West Highland Free Press

, the

Ross-shire Journal and the

Strathy

—the

Strathspey and Badenoch Herald

—to name just three that do a sterling job of holding local politicians to account. I am sure that my Highland colleagues who are leading the debate for the Opposition can testify to that. At a time when national circulation figures seem to be forever falling, such local papers are still relatively well read, employ excellent journalists and set the local agenda. FOI requests are a key part of that, because they make information equally accessible and enable everybody—wherever they are in the country and whoever they are—equally to hold decision makers accountable.

Notwithstanding the comments made by journalists and the Opposition, which, I can see, the Government is taking on board, the Scottish Government has welcomed and co-operated with the Scottish Information Commissioner’s review and appears to be happy to accept, in full, its recommendations to support continued improvement. I think that that is right and proper.

Photo of Brian Whittle Brian Whittle Conservative

We can all agree that full transparency is a key requirement in holding the Scottish Government to account. Responsibility for such transparency in this place lies with the Scottish Government which, to be fair, responded positively and joined all Opposition parties when voting in the chamber following last year’s debate that highlighted the open letter by 23 journalists complaining about the SNP’s handling of FOI requests.

However, here we are again—almost a year to the day later—debating the same issue. The report by the Scottish Information Commissioner and the subsequent intervention by his office are quite remarkable—not least because they indicate a willingness by the Scottish Government to bury bad news and prevent negative headlines.

It is even suggested that Nicola Sturgeon’s ministers are breaking the FOI laws by creating a two-tier system and treating journalists, MSPs and researchers more harshly.

John Swinney, the Deputy First Minister, was found to have interfered in an FOI request to block the publication of several documents. Emails show that Mr Swinney said that “it would be better” if material was withheld, and special advisers subsequently looked for technical exemptions to withhold documents that the minister would prefer not to be released.

That ministers would prefer documents not be released is not sufficient reason to withhold them, no matter how politically damaging or embarrassing the content may be to the Scottish Government.

The response to FOls and written questions is consistently raised by members in the cross-party groups that I have attended. In a recent dual CPG meeting on chronic pain and arthritis and musculoskeletal conditions, it was—if you will pardon the pun, Presiding Officer—a particular pain point.

At every CPG meeting, we try to agree positive actions, which usually include sending questions to the Scottish Government. However, the Government’s standard of reply has been appalling, which necessitates a further question mirroring the first question. It is no wonder that the number of FOls and parliamentary questions is rising so quickly. I have found myself having to answer for the Government’s reluctance to give out any information, explaining the process and suggesting that the same question be resubmitted.

I highlight as a recent example Findlay Carson’s FOI request to ministers for information about the land held by the Scottish Government in connection with the A75. The reply was:

“While it is recognised that there may be some public interest in the details of land held by Scottish Ministers in connection with the A75 trunk road, specifically along the margins of the road itself, clearly we cannot provide information which we do not hold.”

In the space of a sentence, we are told that details of land held by ministers may be of public interest but that they apparently do not know what land they hold. I am not sure what is worse—failing to tell people what land ministers hold, or admitting that ministers do not know what land they hold.

I have, on many occasions, asked the Scottish Government how many times the A77 south of Whitletts roundabout has been closed. What was Humza Yousaf’s reply? He said:

“The detailed information is currently being collated. I will write to the member as soon as the information is available.”—[

Written Answers, 27 March 2018; S5W-15272

.]

The trouble with that response is that it is dated three months ago.

I am finding that the transport, health and education portfolios are the ones that are most at fault; they also happen to be the ones under the most pressure for underperformance. The Scottish Government cannot choose which questions it will or will not answer based on how it happens to be underperforming at that time.

This game of question-and-answer ping pong has got to stop. If the Scottish Government wants the volume of FOls and PQs to reduce, it should not make us ask the same question repeatedly to get a half-decent answer. The Government should follow the protocols that are set out. It is not good enough. I ask that the Scottish Government takes action that reflects the verbal commitment that it has made in this chamber.

Photo of George Adam George Adam Scottish National Party

How any Government conducts itself while going about its business is important, but we have to look at the issue honestly and be honest about the debate. Like Edward Mountain, I, too, want to quote Tony Blair, who is, after all, the father of FOI. The quote carries on beyond what Edward Mountain cited. Although I do not agree with what Tony Blair said, I can understand and respect part of his point of view. He claimed that FOI is not used for the most part by the people. He said:

“For political leaders, it’s like saying to someone who is hitting you over the head with a stick, ‘Hey, try this instead’, and handing them a mallet.”

Tony Blair is a leader who has gone through many things and held different ideals. Although I do not agree with his point of view, we can understand where he is coming from, because a number of mallets have been brought out here today.

In all honesty, freedom of information has progressed since Tony Blair’s Government introduced it. Things have changed in the world, and there is a lot more data in the world, so it will be more difficult to process all of it. However, the Scottish Government is doing well on transparency. It is still not perfect, but it is doing better.

In 2017, there were 2,441 requests answered on time. That is 83 per cent on target, which is not a bad return. It is 300 higher than the number of requests that were made in 2015 or 2016. In 2017, 3,046 requests were received, which is an incredible 41 per cent higher than the previous record of 2,155 in 2015.

Photo of Edward Mountain Edward Mountain Conservative

My concern is that the number of freedom of information requests is going up because none of them is being answered. Most of us are having to submit more than one FOI request in an effort to get an answer to a straightforward question.

Photo of George Adam George Adam Scottish National Party

Greater use is now made of technology, and there is greater openness and transparency, which means that people are engaging more with the process. I would say that that is the reason for the increase in the number of FOI requests.

It is important to add that, during the first four months of 2018, the Scottish Government responded to 93 per cent of requests on time. That is above the figure of 90 per cent that was agreed with the Scottish Information Commissioner. In his report, the commissioner recognises that, over the past 12 months, the Scottish Government has taken steps to improve its FOI practice.

I turn to FOI requests from the media. We can all agree that media scrutiny of the work of Government is an essential part of the political process. Last year, the Scottish Government responded to more than 5,000 requests from journalists outwith the FOI system. Last month, the Scottish Government dealt with 449 inquiries from the media. The Scottish Information Commissioner acknowledged that specific improvements have been made in the way in which FOI requests are dealt with. On page 28 of his report, he went as far as to say:

“What can also be observed ... is a significant improvement in 2017/18, with the average response time for dealing with media cases reducing to 19 days.”

That shows that things have moved forward and that the Government has taken on board many of the issues that have been brought up.

Photo of George Adam George Adam Scottish National Party

I am just closing.

In any Government, transparency and openness are extremely important. In such debates, we need to move away from the extreme hyperbole that we have had a great deal of in this afternoon’s debate. Although the current system is not perfect, the Scottish Government’s direction of travel is positive. That is an important point, and that direction of travel must continue to be encouraged.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

We move to the closing speeches. I ask members to keep to time, please.

Photo of Rachael Hamilton Rachael Hamilton Conservative

I am glad to have the opportunity to close the debate for the Conservatives. From listening to what has been said, it appears that there has been an increase in the number of FOI requests as a result of a lack of information from the Scottish Government or a lack of transparency.

I fully support freedom of information, as every member does. The aim of the FOI legislation is to encourage as much openness and transparency as possible on the substance of information. The work of the Scottish Government should not be based on secrecy and control. We know that FOI requests work—they show mismanagement in our NHS, for example—and that they are an effective way of holding any Government to account. Denying elected members, their staff and journalists access to information or deliberately slowing down the process are practices that belong to a dictatorship, not a democracy. Rhoda Grant said that the Scottish Information Commissioner’s report is

“a wake-up call for the Scottish Government.”

It certainly is. I congratulate the work by journalists and MSPs in bringing such practices to light.

Ministers and their special advisers should not be the judges of who can and who cannot get information, never mind being the decision makers who decide what information gets released to the public. FOI requests are a legitimate method of sourcing information that is not already in the public domain. No minister or special political adviser should stand in the way of that. We can imagine how SNP back benchers would howl if things were the other way round, but they are not—it is the SNP Scottish Government that is ducking and diving to avoid passing on information that is not favourable to it. The minister was asked how many times the Scottish Government has broken the law when it comes to FOI requests. There was no answer—the Government was rumbled by Neil Findlay. It is right that we debate the issue, so that we can give the Government an opportunity to restore public confidence and trust.

The Information Commissioner’s report is damning, and he has given the Scottish Government until 13 September to produce, for his approval, a draft action plan to address the recommendations.

The Government’s habit of referring media requests to political advisers for clearance is contrary to the spirit of the FOI legislation. The report advises that the Scottish Government should undertake a detailed review of clearance procedures and that it should clearly set out the roles of special advisers, outline the procedures that should be used when case handlers and special advisers disagree, and introduce clear rules for the recording of decisions. The report says:

“The current procedures for the clearance of information requests are unclear and lacking in detail. This makes the role of those involved opaque when it should be transparent.”

In addition, the report recommends that the Scottish Government should examine procedures to learn from poor initial decisions and prevent recurring failures, and that it should investigate whether it would be better for quality assurance to be carried out by staff in directorates or agencies rather than by special advisers.

The report calls for media requests—for which people wait an average of two days longer than happens with other requests, with 25 per cent of them issued late—to be given a fairer hearing. The report says:

“It is inherently wrong that a class of requesters is treated differently when processing requests for information solely because of who or what they are. This covers not only journalists, but also MSPs and political researchers.”

Daren FitzHenry has castigated Scottish ministers for the way in which they handled FOI requests, which he says was “inherently wrong”.

The report calls for the Government to ensure that case handlers have sufficient knowledge and training to deal with the requests. The report also recommends that the Government should improve its record keeping to ensure that FOI performance is properly tracked and to improve the time taken to respond.

The Government amendment shows a lack of understanding, I am afraid, and the Scottish Conservatives have misgivings about it. We would have preferred to see the Scottish Government get its house in order. It has promised to implement the report’s recommendations in full—we, too, recommend that. In the amendment in the name of Edward Mountain, we call on the Scottish Information Commissioner to publish an annual report on the Government’s implementation of the action plan, and we hope that we will receive support for that tonight.

Photo of Joe FitzPatrick Joe FitzPatrick Scottish National Party

I apologise if I misquote him, but Alex Rowley said that we should listen to the commissioner. I hope that members will accept from my earlier comments that we are listening to the commissioner. We acknowledge that the commissioner made clear in his intervention report that there are several areas for improvement in our handling process. We are determined to take those forward and make those improvements.

As I have already said several times, in the light of the commissioner’s recommendations, we will publish an action plan by 13 September, as he requests. However, I urge members to note that considerable improvements have already been put in place as part of wider work that is in train in the Scottish Government. More resources have been committed to our central FOI unit, review responses are being cleared centrally—

Photo of Joe FitzPatrick Joe FitzPatrick Scottish National Party

I have only four minutes and there are a few points that I need to cover.

Quality and consistency are consistently improving, and for almost a year we have published the information released in response to requests online, with more than 1,800 releases published to date.

Following a concerted effort, our performance has also improved significantly in the past year. As George Adam said, in 2016 we responded to 76 per cent of requests on time, in 2017 that moved up to 83 per cent, and so far this year the figure is sitting at 93 per cent. We continue to work to see what we can do to improve our overall performance. This should be clear, but it is important to point out that in the majority of cases information is released. Against a backdrop of record numbers of requests—as was also pointed out by George Adam—this Government is releasing more information on time than any previous Government.

The release and publication of information in response to FOI requests is only one part of the Government’s wider openness agenda. As Ben Macpherson said, in 2017, the Scottish Government responded to more than 5,000 requests from journalists, separately from—and in addition to—those handled under FOI. It is important to make the point that our fantastic officials respond to the overwhelming majority of those media requests in less than three hours.

Daniel Johnson made a point about ministerial correspondence, which we did not have a huge amount of time to discuss because of the shortness of the debate.

In 2017-18, the Scottish Government received 43,000 pieces of ministerial correspondence that required responses, of which 90 per cent were answered on time. I have already mentioned the new systems that we are putting in place. I hope that they will improve the tracking of ministerial correspondence, and that they will help to improve our FOI performance.

As I said earlier, a wealth of information is made available on the Scottish Government’s website. Details of all ministerial engagements, overseas travel, car journeys, domestic travel, ministerial gifts and guest lists are published proactively on the gov.scot website and, as I announced in my opening speech, from July we will publish ministerial travel and subsistence expenses.

We are always looking for examples of good practice elsewhere, and I take on board the point that Daniel Johnson made about the practice of the Mayor of London’s office. I will look to see whether there are lessons to be learned from there, because it is absolutely in line with our approach to try to ensure that this Scottish Government is an exemplar in freedom of information practice.

Freedom of information forms a critical part of the wider transparency agenda. We will, in line with the commissioner’s recommendation, make changes and reforms where required, and we will continue to drive forward improvements in performance.

We will take on board the points made by the Liberal Democrats about looking for further expansion. I know the point about the desire for legislation, but there is a legal framework process that requires consultation. I am very much on the same page as the Liberal Democrats on the issue and I thank them for the way that they have approached it. It is worth acknowledging that—

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

Could you close, please, minister?

Photo of Joe FitzPatrick Joe FitzPatrick Scottish National Party

When FOI was introduced by the Scottish Executive, as it was then, I think that it was the Liberal Democrats who were in the driving seat in those days.

Photo of Neil Findlay Neil Findlay Labour

Before I start, I invite all members to the Campaign for Freedom of Information in Scotland meeting tonight in committee room 1 at 6 o’clock, where the campaign will tell us what it thinks of the Information Commissioner’s report.

We have had some very good speeches today from Rhoda Grant, Daniel Johnson, Edward Mountain, Alex Rowley and Brian Whittle—they made excellent contributions. I think that I can say that we have had very ambitious speeches from Kate Forbes and Ben Macpherson; I am sure that they will be rewarded in due course. We have had another dreadful performance from the minister. Every time he comes to the Parliament to talk about the issue, he gets himself into a bigger mess. I think that the most inviting and tempting offer was that of taking a mallet to George Adam. Please form an orderly queue, everyone. [

Interruption

.] I am only joking. [

Interruption

.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

Can we have a bit of peace and quiet, please? Carry on, Mr Findlay.

Photo of Neil Findlay Neil Findlay Labour

The report has come out after unprecedented action, with

23 of our most respected journalists writing to the Parliament because of their concerns about how FOI requests were being mishandled. At the time, I suggested that the mishandling may have been deliberate; now we know that it was deliberate. Journalists, researchers and MSPs were discriminated against because of who they are. That was a deliberate policy decision by the Government.

The report raises many issues, including that of the role of special advisers. It says that the Scottish Government’s FOI policies and procedures are not clear enough about the role of special advisers in responding to FOI requests. It states:

“Formal guidance for staff was ... ambiguous ... with the Scottish Government’s guidance on ‘Obtaining clearance before issuing a response’ advising staff that ‘if you are unsure whether you think a case requires to be cleared by special advisers and/or ministers please contact the SpAds’ office for a steer’”,

yet when interviewed for the commissioner’s report, the SPADs denied that they cleared anything. The report then goes on to say:

“The on-site examination of case files identified numerous instances of delays in the issuing of responses due to delays in obtaining clearance from special advisers.”

The report says that the letter and spirit of the law were not being met and that politically sensitive information was being treated differently. Let me interpret that for the minister: the Government broke the law.

The commissioner has made seven recommendations for further specific improvements. There is a recommendation on clearance procedures. We need an answer on why SPADs and ministers were screening FOI replies. Another recommendation is about quality assurance—who is responsible for what comes out from the Government and when it comes out? There is a question about training—who has and has not been given training?

There are recommendations about case handling and case file records management. We have all been denied answers to FOI requests because it is too costly to accumulate the information. The reason why it is too costly is because records management is so bad.

Another recommendation is on monitoring FOI requests—who is accountable? At one point, the commissioner refers to a meeting and says:

“Following this meeting, I requested a copy of the full tracking report from the FOI tracker up to 17 December 2017 ... After some considerable technical difficulties, on 16 March 2018 I received the tracking report”.

That was three months later, which is about the same amount of time that we often wait for FOI requests to come back to us, so I say to the commissioner, “Welcome to the club.”

The journalists’ complaints have been completely vindicated. The Government has been caught bang to rights.

Photo of Joe FitzPatrick Joe FitzPatrick Scottish National Party

Will the member welcome the fact that the Scottish Government has agreed to implement all the commissioner’s recommendations?

Photo of Neil Findlay Neil Findlay Labour

Of course I welcome that, but it should never have come to this because the Government should not have been operating such a bad system.

There is much more that we have to do. Often when we use FOI, we are told that minutes, agendas and briefings for meetings do not exist. I have previously asked for minutes, agendas and briefings for meetings between John Swinney and senior financiers, between Derek Mackay and senior officials at the Scottish Futures Trust, between Humza Yousaf and ScotRail, between Nicola Sturgeon and newspaper editors, and between Nicola Sturgeon and Charlotte Street Partners, but the response is: no minutes, no agenda and no briefing. I invite the minister to tell us why there are no minutes of those meetings.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

You are in your last minute, Mr Findlay.

Photo of Neil Findlay Neil Findlay Labour

I hear absolutely nothing from the minister

.

We need a further inquiry that takes into account all the issues, because it is not just about freedom of information; it is about all the meetings that the Government has with very powerful people—spending money on behalf of the public—that no one would ever know happen, because there are no minutes, no agenda and no briefings for them. This is the Government’s opportunity to put all of that right, in addition to putting right everything that is in the Information Commissioner’s report.