Freedom of Information (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3
The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Freedom of Information (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. For dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2, the marshalled list and the groupings. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak buttons as soon as possible after I call that group. Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.
Before section 1A
Group 1 relates to information under arrangements made by Scottish public authorities. Amendment 7, in the name of Elaine Murray, is the only amendment in the group.
In lodging all the amendments that I am presenting for Parliament’s consideration today, I have attempted to reflect the Finance Committee’s discussion of amendments that I lodged at stage 2. I have not resubmitted the same amendments, but my stage 3 amendments have the same purpose: to strengthen the amended act; to ensure that its provisions are used; and to ensure that past or future creation of arm’s-length external organisations and the commissioning of large-scale contracts to provide services on behalf of public authorities do not diminish the public’s right to know.
At stage 2, I introduced two amendments that dealt with the future creation of arm’s-length bodies and major contracts undertaken on behalf of public bodies to the value of more than £1 million. Those amendments attempted to retain responsibility for freedom of information with the public body where the operation of functions had been given to ALEOs or transferred through major public sector contracts. Although committee members—and, indeed, the cabinet secretary—had sympathy for the intention of those amendments, they felt that the amendments as proposed would not achieve that intention and they were unclear on how the proposed requirements would be enforced and what the terms of such arrangements would be.
Amendment 7 seeks to amend the original Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 by inserting into section 3, “Scottish public authorities”, a requirement to make arrangements regarding access to information relating to the exercise of functions that have been transferred out of the direct responsibility of an authority. The amendment would ensure that, when a public authority establishes a body or makes a contract to the value of more than £1 million for the purposes of exercising the authority’s functions or providing services on its behalf, the authority must make arrangements to ensure that it receives information in the possession of the body so established or the contractor if the authority receives a freedom of information request for that information. The requirement would not be retrospective but, after the bill’s enactment, public authorities, ALEOs and major public sector contractors would be required to have arrangements in place by which the authority could access information if requested to do so under freedom of information legislation.
At stage 2, the cabinet secretary raised concerns that the information referred to in my amendment on public sector contracts might include more than the performance of the contract and that there could be a conflict with the Public Records (Scotland) Act 2011. In my view, amendment 7 makes it clear that the information relates to the exercise of functions or the provision of services that would have been subject to FOI legislation had they continued to be undertaken directly by the public authority. Section 3(1)(b) of the Public Records (Scotland) Act 2011 provides that
“records created by or on behalf of a contractor in carrying out the authority’s functions”
are public records of that authority. That means that an authority’s records management plan must set out the arrangements for managing its contractors’ records as well as the records that are created by the authority. I believe that the approach adopted in my amendment 7 is similar, and I believe that the potential conflict between the amended FOI act and the Public Records (Scotland) Act 2011 is therefore resolved.
I know that the Scottish Information Commissioner has expressed support for the policy intention of amendment 7 but has questioned whether the value of the contract is inclusive or exclusive of VAT. In my view it clearly would be exclusive of VAT, as the value of a contract is the value to the contractor, not the value to the United Kingdom Treasury.
I move amendment 7.
14:45
I am not convinced that amendment 7 is strictly necessary or desirable. I am not convinced that it is necessary because section 5 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 gives the Government power to make an order that designates a body as being subject to FOI. In my view, that is the appropriate means to do that. The fact that that has not been done in the period since the 2002 act was passed is neither here nor there. It is important that we see the mechanism being utilised and, for that reason, I do not think that amendment 7 is necessary.
With regard to the desirability of amendment 7, in the absence of a regulatory impact assessment I am slightly nervous about what impact it may have and I am slightly concerned that it could cut against the better regulation agenda.
For those reasons, we will not support amendment 7.
I support amendment 7, which is sensible. If we are trying to get a regime that follows the public pound, this is the way in which we should proceed. It seems to be a relatively simple, devolved way of operating that would mean that rather than relying on the retrospective section 5—which is worthy and should always be used—we could have a proactive scheme so that we could keep track of the public pound in the FOI regime. It is sensible, especially given the erosion of the FOI regime’s coverage, to which the Deputy First Minister has alluded, and I think that that is the way in which we should proceed.
Amendment 7 is similar in many respects to an amendment that Elaine Murray lodged at stage 2, although I appreciate that she has made some changes to reflect the discussions that took place then.
As I said at stage 2, I am not unsympathetic to the intention behind amendment 7. Certainly, consultation has shown that the public favour the public authority being the access point to information. However, my concerns about amendment 7 are very similar to the concerns that I had at stage 2: the amendment may have unintended or, indeed, unpredictable consequences.
Amendment 7 concerns any organisation that is
“exercising any function of the authority or providing any service whose provision is a function of the authority”.
Given the numerous organisations that that might include, it quickly becomes apparent that it would be unclear which organisations might be expected to hold information on behalf of a particular public authority. It will become almost impossible for an authority to know what information it holds and that will become exacerbated when information is held further down the supply chain.
Administering the arrangements could place a burden on all public authorities, as well as an additional administrative burden on affected organisations. It would also place a considerable policing burden on the Scottish Information Commissioner.
Amendment 7 provides that the relevant information relates to
“the exercise of the function ... or ... provision of the service”.
The meaning of that is unclear and imprecise. It leaves considerable potential for ambiguity and uncertainty as to what information may be within scope.
Of particular practical concern are the arrangements. I point out to members that “arrangements” is undefined in amendment 7. The arrangements
“must include provision to ensure the timely provision to the authority”
in the event of a request for information. That would apply down the supply chain and it would become increasingly difficult for the authority to comply with, as it has no direct control down that chain.
Dr Murray herself pointed to an issue around interpretation of the value of the contract. I heard what she said and it may be that she thinks that she knows what is meant by “£1 million” in amendment 7 but, with the greatest respect, I am not sure that that is sufficient if there is a lack of provision about what it means, with regard to the example that she used.
I am glad to hear that Nicola Sturgeon accepts the principle of amendment 7. If she is keen on the principle but not the detail, why did she not lodge an amendment of her own that could have embodied the substance of amendment 7 without some of the problems that she claims would arise from it?
If Malcolm Chisholm is patient, he will hear me say more, in the course of the afternoon, about how the Government intends to ensure that the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, as amended by the bill, stays up to speed with changes in how public services are delivered. I will say more about my intention to bring forward a section 5 order in early course, which I have already spoken about. In the context of later amendments, I will say more about how I foresee that applying to ALEOs, for example.
Having considered amendment 7, I do not believe that even an amended version of it would fulfil properly the laudable intentions that lie behind it. I therefore invite Dr Murray to withdraw the amendment.
I note the point that Gavin Brown makes fairly, that the changes that are proposed by the amendment have not been subject to consultation or the normal assessments that would be undertaken, despite the fact that the amendment would have very far-reaching implications.
As I said to Malcolm Chisholm, when we debate other amendments I will say more about the use of section 5. However, in all the circumstances and for all the reasons that I have outlined, I invite Dr Murray to withdraw amendment 7.
I believe that the cabinet secretary is making the interpretation of the amendment unnecessarily complicated. Public authorities already have mechanisms in place to deal with freedom of information requests and the amendment is not retrospective—it refers to ALEOs and contracts that will be made in the future. The public authorities making those arrangements already have systems in place, and the amendment will ensure that the systems continue once the functions have been transferred.
I press amendment 7.
The question is, that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division. As it is the first division of the afternoon, I suspend the meeting for 5 minutes.
14:52
Meeting suspended.
14:57
On resuming—
We move to the division on amendment 7.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McDougall, Margaret (West Scotland) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMahon, Siobhan (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Urquhart, Jean (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Goldie, Annabel (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (North East Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Walker, Bill (Dunfermline) (Ind)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 40, Against 74, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 7 disagreed to.
Group 2 is on the purposes of the FOI act. Amendment 9, in the name of Michael McMahon, is the only amendment in the group.
The Finance Committee has been looking at a few bills recently and an inconsistency in the Government’s approach to the use of a purpose clause in those bills has come to light during our deliberations. For example, when discussing the Land and Buildings Transaction Tax (Scotland) Bill, officials made clear the value of having a purpose clause in place in order to avoid misinterpretation of the bill’s intent. However, in relation to the Freedom of Information (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill before us, we were told by the cabinet secretary at stage 2 that such a clause should be rejected, because adding such a clause
“could lead to the act being interpreted in a very different manner from the one in which Parliament originally intended it to be interpreted.”—[Official Report, Finance Committee, 5 December 2012; c 1937.]
That was despite the fact that it was made clear in the consultation document on the original FOI act that the purpose of the law was to allow information about our public services to be accessed by the public. How can that be misinterpreted?
The original consultation stated that the law should cover
“all Scottish public authorities and service providers”.
The Scottish Government’s six principles also refer to FOI as
“an essential part of open democratic government and responsive public services.”
However, that does not form part of the law, and the Government argues that to introduce clarity on the purpose of the 2002 act could have “unintended consequences” or
“change the fundamental ethos of the legislation”.—[Official Report, Finance Committee, 5 December 2012; c 1936.]
How can it be the case that to introduce a purpose clause to state what the original act was intended to do can be said to change its fundamental ethos and be to the detriment of the bill and the use of FOI legislation?
Quite simply, the insertion of a purpose clause is needed because the Scottish Government’s consultation in 2010 and the evidence that we have had from various sources indicate that the law is not delivering what MSPs intended or what the public wanted. Therefore, we need to legislate explicitly for what we all say that we support so that we can uphold the enforceable right of the people of Scotland to access information. That is what was promised in 2002, but doubt has been raised about whether that is what we have. The inclusion in the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 of the provisions that are proposed in amendment 9 would remove that doubt.
I move amendment 9.
15:00
I support Michael McMahon’s proposals.
I think that we have a problem. We could almost say that there is a crisis in the freedom of information regime. There is a lack of confidence among the public that the Scottish Government and its agencies are acting appropriately. In recent years, there have been a number of incidents in which the Government has withheld information unnecessarily and now there is suspicion among the public about whether the Government is fully embracing the freedom of information regime.
Will the member give way?
No, not just now.
Kevin Dunion said that, at the time of its passage, the 2002 act was
“generally viewed as amongst the stronger access to information laws in the world.”
However, he went on to say that
“Scotland’s FOI regime is at risk of slipping behind other legislatures.”
The purpose clause that is proposed in amendment 9 would set out clearly why the legislation is needed and would send a signal to public sector workers as well as ministers that they should be open and embrace openness, because that leads to better government.
I support amendment 9.
Some good arguments have been put forward by the Campaign for Freedom of Information in Scotland and by members, but I still have reservations about inserting a purpose clause in the original act through an amending act. Broadly, the 2002 act has performed fairly well, and I think that the bill’s provisions and some of the amendments that we are considering today will do enough to address the weaknesses of the original legislation.
There are genuine concerns about unforeseen consequences, and I note that when the 2002 act was passed, a formal decision was taken not to have a purpose clause. Having listened carefully to the arguments, particularly those that were made at stage 2, on balance I find myself unable to support amendment 9.
As we have heard, amendment 9 advocates the insertion into the 2002 act of a purpose clause. I hope that even Michael McMahon would reflect on the fact that there may well be a fairly substantive difference between inserting a purpose clause into a bill at the outset and inserting a purpose clause into an act that has been in existence for eight years and which has been subject to interpretation over that time by the Scottish Information Commissioner and, on occasion, the courts.
The arguments against amendment 9 remain the same as they were when it was first proposed at stage 2. I do not believe that a purpose clause is required for the 2002 act to continue to deliver on its underlying principles. As a matter of good law making, if the act were failing to deliver on those principles—unlike Willie Rennie, I do not believe that that is the case—the proper way to address that would be through careful amendment of the act’s provisions rather than to try to overlay it with a purpose clause, the effect of which is deeply uncertain.
Whatever criticisms some people may make of the 2002 act—in particular, the one that can be made, with some justification, about the fact that section 5 of the act has not yet been invoked to extend the act’s coverage—I do not believe that it can be argued with any credibility that there is any doubt about what the freedom of information legislation is designed to achieve.
The long title of the 2002 act states that it is an act to make
“provision for the disclosure of information held by Scottish public authorities or by persons providing services for them”.
Section 1(1) of the act states:
“A person who requests information from a Scottish public authority which holds it is entitled to be given it by the authority.”
Therefore, in my view, the act’s intention and purpose are crystal clear.
It is also important to reflect on the 2002 report that was made by the lead committee when the original Freedom of Information (Scotland) Bill was progressing through Parliament. The report said that the committee was
“not persuaded of the need for a purpose clause”.
The 2002 act already makes information that relates to the provision of public services available to persons who request it, so I do not believe that the amendment is necessary or that it adds anything. Further, and perhaps more concerning, I believe that such an amendment, eight years into the life of an act of Parliament, could have unintended and unpredictable consequences.
It is not clear to me how amendment 9, if it were passed, would be measurable or workable in practice. Crucially, it is not clear what the legal effects of the amendment would be, for example, in relation to applying the existing conditions for disclosure and the operation of the current framework of exemptions. The commissioner and the courts would have to reconsider the meaning of all the provisions in the act against the new purpose clause. That would lead to great uncertainty for authorities and for the public who want to access information.
When the 2002 act was passed, its provisions were carefully considered by this Parliament and its committees and the purpose and the intentions of the provisions were clear. Amendment 9 would require reinterpretation of the act in light of the purpose and, as I have said, that would lead to uncertainty and unpredictability.
The law can always be improved. We are debating an amendment bill because we recognise that the law needs to be improved. However, I do not accept that there is any lack of clarity about the purpose of the 2002 act and therefore I do not consider that the amendment is necessary. In light of my comments about potential uncertainty, I do not believe that it is helpful or desirable either. I therefore invite Michael McMahon to withdraw amendment 9.
I do not believe that this is a particularly complex issue. It is more about principle than detail. The omission in 2002 of a purpose clause appears more and more to be a mistake. If we have the clarity that the cabinet secretary says that we have, why are more and more issues arising and being taken to the courts?
Public bodies take different approaches, despite performing similar functions. More and more cases are coming under dispute and whether a request for information meets the purpose of the 2002 act is continually being challenged. I and others believe that the purpose clause would help to clarify the intent behind the 2002 act and give clarity in determining whether a refusal to provide information falls outwith the purposes of that original act. I therefore urge members to support my amendment for that very simple purpose.
I press amendment 9.
The question is, that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McDougall, Margaret (West Scotland) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMahon, Siobhan (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Urquhart, Jean (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Goldie, Annabel (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (North East Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Walker, Bill (Dunfermline) (Ind)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 40, Against 75, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 9 disagreed to.
Section 1A—Designation of Authorities
Group 3 is on exercise of power to designate authorities. [Interruption.] Could I have order in the chamber, please?
Amendment 8, in the name of Elaine Murray, is grouped with amendment 1.
Amendment 7 was intended to deal with arm’s-length organisations that might be created and major public sector contracts that might be entered into by public authorities in the future. Amendment 8 deals with those that have been created since the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 was passed but have not been designated because ministers in successive Governments have not used their power under section 5 of the act.
When the 2002 act was passed, the then Minister for Justice, Jim Wallace, indicated that there would be early consultation on extension of the act to cover registered social landlords and major private finance initiative/public-private partnership contracts. Consultation was undertaken in 2006, but it was not followed by designation. A discussion paper was issued in 2008 but, again, there was no action. There was further extensive consultation, including a draft order, in 2010, but to date, the section 5 power has not been used. Perhaps the cabinet secretary will advise us today that it will be used shortly, but even that would not alter the validity of amendment 8.
Since the 2002 act was passed, housing stock has been transferred from local authorities to housing associations in Glasgow and in Dumfries and Galloway, to mention only two areas, a plethora of arm’s-length bodies have been established by public authorities to provide services on their behalf, and public authorities have entered into major contracts with private and third sector organisations to provide services on their behalf. In all those cases, the public’s right to information under the act was lost on transfer of the function or service out of the direct control of the public authority. The public’s right to information has therefore diminished since the passing of the act in 2002.
Amendment 8 requires the Scottish ministers to give particular regard to the public’s access to information that is held by bodies that have been created by Scottish public authorities to exercise functions on their behalf or contractors that hold a contract with a value greater than £1 million to provide services on behalf of a Scottish public authority when considering how to exercise their section 5 power to designate Scottish public authorities. In other words, the amendment would specifically require ministers to consider designating such bodies or contractors and thereby to address the information deficit that has evolved since the 2002 act was passed. It would not force ministers to do that; it means that they would have to have particular regard to those bodies.
The amendment is perfectly reasonable, and I do not understand why it could not be acceptable, as it would not create any problems in the way that amendment 7 might have done. It simply requires the ministers to have particular regard to the bodies that are transferred out of the control of public authorities.
In relation to amendment 1, I lodged an amendment at stage 2 to replace the requirement to consult “other persons” whom ministers considered appropriate with a requirement to consult
“members of the public and other interested parties”.
The cabinet secretary advised that the phrase
“such other persons as they consider appropriate”
was a standard consultation obligation and that the phrase “other interested parties” was ill defined. There was uncertainty around the meaning of “interested” and the consequences if someone who had not been consulted asserted later that they had an interest and ought to have been consulted. However, at stage 2, the cabinet secretary made no comment on the inclusion of “members of the public”. I hope that that indicates that there was no objection to that part of the amendment.
Amendment 1 seeks to avoid those problems by retaining the standard consultation phrase and merely inserting a requirement to consult members of the public in addition to the persons specified in the amendment to section 5 of the 2000 act. As it stands, the amendment bill requires ministers to consult
“every person to whom the order relates ... persons”
who
“represent such persons, and ... such other persons as they consider appropriate.”
The addition of “members of the public” makes it clear that persons who are not directly affected by the order but who might have a view on whether the Government should designate an authority using its section 5 power have the right to be consulted.
I move amendment 8.
Amendment 1 would add in the words
“consult members of the public”.
A briefing note to the Finance Committee by the Scottish Information Commissioner at stage 2 said:
“I would therefore urge the Committee to consider how the current proposed wording will provide the necessary safeguards to ensure the general public, and those who represent them, will be appropriately represented in any future consultation.”
I think that that is fair and sensible, so I will support amendment 1, and I urge other members to do the same.
15:15
As I said earlier, the Deputy First Minister referred in a previous contribution to debate on the bill to the fact that there has been an erosion in the coverage of the freedom of information regime. She has tempted us numerous times that she will reveal later on when the list will be reviewed. There is great anticipation—certainly among Liberal Democrats—that that will be done quite soon.
The Scottish National Party has been in office for six years, and I do not think that we can wait too much longer to find out which of the other 130 ALEOs are going to be included in the freedom of information regime. When the Deputy First Minister makes that decision, I think that amendment 8 will assist her in making decisions about which ALEOs should be included, because it is really about public function and public funds. The Campaign for Freedom of Information has always focused on ensuring that we follow the public pound when considering freedom of information. I therefore think that what Elaine Murray proposes in her amendments is perfectly sensible, so I support amendments 8 and 1.
Extending the coverage of the 2002 act is obviously a separate issue from this amendment bill, but it is clearly a matter that has been closely connected to the bill’s passage and it has featured in many of our discussions on the bill. The Government’s amendments to the bill that were agreed at stage 2 sought to address concerns about the lack of use of the section 5 power to extend coverage. As a result, the bill as amended widens the scope of consultation on extension and introduces the requirement for Scottish ministers to report regularly to the Parliament on the use or otherwise of the power to extend coverage. The amendments in group 3 also relate to extension of coverage.
Amendment 8 seems to me to be unnecessary. I think that it adds confusion to the current requirements in section 5 of the act. I accept—this has been a common theme in what I have said on the issue—that the power in section 5 has been unused, but I do not believe that that means that section 5 is inadequate for the purposes of any Government that wants to extend the scope of freedom of information. I say directly to Willie Rennie that I do not consider that amendment 8 would help me in the considerations that I have had and will continue to have about the use of section 5. Everything that I need to consider the extension of coverage is in section 5 already.
At present, section 5 concerns organisations that appear to ministers to exercise functions of a public nature or which, under contract with a public authority, provide services that are a function of the public authority. The purpose of making a designation under section 5 is to provide access to information that is considered desirable. To that extent, amendment 8 would add nothing to the existing provision. However, it would have the effect of focusing attention on particular groups. The majority of bodies that fall within the scope of designation under section 5 will already be bodies established by authorities. Amendment 8 would therefore not add to the existing law.
How can we be sure that bodies will be added as a result of the amendments that the cabinet secretary made to the bill in relation to reporting to Parliament? Further, how can we be sure about what kind of bodies—for example, ALEOs—may or may not be included?
I think that the amendments that we have already made to the bill greatly add to the accountability of ministers to Parliament for ensuring that due consideration is given and that there is a regular reporting period. It will then be for the Parliament to hold ministers to account.
I have already said—Willie Rennie has referred to this a couple times in this debate—that coverage has been eroded by the creation of ALEOs. I will say something about that in particular for the next group of amendments. However, I do not accept that we can have an obligation on ministers that means that, come what may, every review will lead to bodies being added, because we would eventually get to a point at which there might be no bodies that it was appropriate to add. Ministers have to retain the ability to make a judgment in that respect. Through the amendments that we have already made to the bill, we have increased the accountability of ministers and the obligation on them to explain themselves to Parliament regarding the decisions that they take.
To return to my comments about amendments 8 and 1, in relation to the provision of services, proposed section 5(2A)(b) in amendment 8 calls for a particular focus on larger contracts, suggesting that it is not desirable to include lower-value contracts. I do not think that that limitation is appropriate, because I believe that every case should be considered on its merits. I suggest that section 5 is already adequate to capture bodies that are providing public services, so a requirement to have particular regard to certain bodies does not add anything.
Confusingly, the language that is used in amendment 8 also varies slightly from the language that is used in section 5 by referring to the exercise of any functions or the provision of services on the authority’s behalf. The amendment contains no reference to functions being of a public nature, but there is reference to services, and that would contradict section 5(2)(a), and raise a question about whether it broadens the types of bodies that can be covered.
Identifying bodies
“where the total sum to be paid by the authority under the contract exceeds £1 million”
also seems to be somewhat arbitrary, particularly as some bodies might have multiple smaller contracts with an authority that would not be covered if none of them exceeded £1 million on their own, even if, taken together, they did exceed £1 million. I therefore urge Elaine Murray to withdraw amendment 8.
I turn briefly to amendment 1, which was considered at stage 2 and would require consultation to be with members of the public. I note in passing that that has always been the case with consultation to date—members of the public have always been consulted. I understand that there are concerns that the consultations on the extension of coverage that have been carried out to date have not sufficiently targeted consumers or service users in relation to the organisations proposed for coverage. However, I am not convinced that introducing a general requirement to consult members of the public would assist in satisfying those concerns. The purpose of the Government’s previously agreed amendment is to widen consultation on extension to include other persons who are considered to be appropriate. For example, as stated in the explanatory notes, it would be appropriate to consult
“those likely to use the services of a body proposed for coverage”.
That will ensure that each consultation can target those who will be affected or interested, and that that includes members of the public. I know that there have been expressions of support for amendment 1 but, all things considered, it does not satisfy a clear policy objective and, therefore, in practice, I argue that it is unnecessary.
The cabinet secretary said that amendment 8 would focus attention on particular groups—of course it would. The very intention of amendment 8 is to look at those groups where bodies have been transferred out of the control of public authorities and the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 no longer applies to them, and large-scale public contracts. The amendment would not force ministers to designate such groups, but it asks ministers to give them particular consideration. I also believe that, within the terms of the rest of the amended act, it would also require ministers to report to Parliament what consideration they have given and why they have taken the decision to designate or not to do so. Amendment 8 does not exclude lower-value contracts. It would still be perfectly possible for ministers to consider multiple contracts; it just makes particular reference to those that might be of greater public concern and to which the public might not currently have access.
Amendment 1 is not the same as the amendment that I lodged at stage 2. At that stage, there was no discussion about the desirability or otherwise of consulting members of the public. I will press amendment 8.
The question is, that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McDougall, Margaret (West Scotland) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMahon, Siobhan (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Goldie, Annabel (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (North East Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Urquhart, Jean (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Walker, Bill (Dunfermline) (Ind)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 39, Against 75, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 8 disagreed to.
Amendment 1 moved—[Elaine Murray].
The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Goldie, Annabel (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McDougall, Margaret (West Scotland) (Lab)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMahon, Siobhan (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (North East Scotland) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Urquhart, Jean (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Walker, Bill (Dunfermline) (Ind)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 50, Against 64, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 1 disagreed to.
Group 4 is on reporting on power to designate authorities. Amendment 10, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 2 to 5 and 11. If amendment 10 is agreed to, amendment 2 will be pre-empted and I will not be able to call it.
The amendments in this group, like the amendments in the previous group, reflect the focus on the extension of coverage that was the key issue during the bill’s consultation and parliamentary scrutiny phases.
In seeking to revise an approach that was agreed to at stage 2, I think that there is common ground between the amendments that the Government has lodged and those that Elaine Murray has lodged. Both Elaine Murray and I seek to bring forward the date of the initial report; we also find ourselves in agreement on the revision of the length of the reporting period from three years to two years. I am therefore happy to accept and support amendment 3, in Elaine Murray’s name, although I will try to persuade her not to move the other amendments in her name in the group.
Amendment 10, in my name, seeks to bring forward the date of the initial report to no later than the end of October 2015. Amendment 2, in Elaine Murray’s name, would bring forward the date of the initial report by two years, to the end of June 2014. As the bill stands, the date is June 2016. A report by June 2014 would be premature. Everyone knows the current position, and the section 5 power has not been used. Given that the act is likely to be commenced in spring, Elaine Murray’s proposed approach would allow for little more than a year in which additional information could be reported on.
An initial report in 2015 is a preferable approach, because it provides an adequate timeframe to allow proper and considered analysis of the key issues and, crucially, appropriate engagement with stakeholders, including people who are potentially affected by proposals for coverage. A persuasive point was made in committee at stage 2 by, I think, John Mason, and probably by other members, which was that the initial report should be issued during the current parliamentary session. A requirement for a reporting deadline of October 2015 addresses that concern and means that ministers of this Administration will be accountable for the use of the power to extend coverage.
I emphasise that the periodic reports, important though they will be, will in no way preclude the use of the power to extend coverage at any time in the reporting period. I can confirm that my officials have written to Scottish local authorities today to inform them that I plan to make the first-ever section 5 order as soon as is practicably possible. The initial order—I stress “initial”—will, in the first instance, extend coverage to bodies that are established or created by local authorities to deliver recreational, sporting, cultural and social facilities on their behalf.
I then plan to look at further extension, to ALEOs that carry out other functions. We did not consult on that, and I confirm that I intend to consult the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, local authorities and other interested parties on bringing councils’ other arm’s-length external organisations that carry out public functions within the scope of FOI.
Prioritising ALEOs deals with the legitimate point about erosion that has been made. I am still considering other organisations that were previously consulted on and will report to Parliament on my decisions on that. However, I see no reason not to get on with the job of bringing within the ambit of the act first the cultural and sporting ALEOs and then other ALEOs, subject to consultation.
15:30
If things move as quickly as the cabinet secretary has just indicated they will, surely there will be something to report in June 2014.
That may be the case. What I am saying is simply that a longer period of time would give me the opportunity to also consider further organisations. All things considered, a longer period for reporting makes sense. At the moment, that is set at 2016. By bringing it forward to 2015, we strike the right balance and ensure that there is sufficient time to properly consider not only the initial—I deliberately stress the word “initial”—order that I am talking about but also other considerations that I want time to make. Crucially, it means that I, or a subsequent minister in this Administration, will be accountable before the next Scottish Parliament elections. That strikes the right balance.
We are on common ground with regard to question 3 and, as I have already said, I am happy to support the amendment. Indeed, it would have been a Government amendment if Dr Murray had not lodged it first. I am happy to accept that a shorter reporting period of two years will help to achieve the policy objective, ensuring that regular consideration is given to the use of the power to extend coverage.
Meanwhile, amendment 4 would appear to force minister’s hands in requiring an order extending coverage to be laid within three months after the date of the first report, if no order to extend had been made by that point, although I have made clear my intentions to bring forward an order. My objection to amendment 4 is a principled one, as it would entirely remove ministerial discretion in relation to the timescale for the making of an extension order, which is inappropriate and unreasonable. The amendment is a blunt instrument to ensure that the power in section 5 is used by a certain date. As I have just noted, I intend to bring that forward this year, so I argue that the amendment is unnecessary.
It is important to be clear about the purpose of the reports. As I said earlier to Malcolm Chisholm, they are about ensuring the accountability of ministers to Parliament and are intended to provide an explanation on a regular basis of the use or otherwise of the power to extend the coverage of the act. They are distinct from the process of extension itself and should not serve as a trigger to force the laying of an order.
Amendment 5 makes consequential provision in relation to amendment 4. As I am inviting Elaine Murray not to move amendment 4, I invite her to withdraw amendment 5, too.
Amendment 11 is a change to the definition of the reporting period in section 1A. The amendment proposes an initial reporting period from commencement of the section to the date on which the first report is laid. Therefore, if members agree amendment 10, the initial report is likely to cover the period from spring this year to October 2015. If the existing period of three years were maintained but the earlier initial reporting date were agreed, the reporting period would become retrospective. As the current position is clear, and there has been no extension of coverage, that seems unnecessary.
It should also be noted that the bill allows for reports to include such additional information as Scottish ministers consider appropriate, which would allow for material predating the formal reporting period to be included.
I hope that members will welcome the announcement of the first ever section 5 order and support amendment 10. I ask Elaine Murray not to move the other amendments in the group.
I move amendment 10.
I advise the chamber that we are extremely tight for time.
The bill, as lodged, suggests that the first report will be laid on 30 June 2016. At stage 2, I suggested that we bring that forward to 30 June this year, but the cabinet secretary felt that that was not appropriate because it would require the first report to be laid within two months. I understand that. My feeling is that that probably is a little bit too soon, but other members of the committee had some sympathy for the concerns that I expressed at stage 2. Indeed, John Mason suggested that we should perhaps consider a compromise of 2014 or 2015. I have opted for 2014, but that would still be 12 years after the 2002 act was passed. To be honest, given the announcement that the cabinet secretary has just made, I cannot see how that timescale would present any problems. By contrast, the Scottish Government’s amendment 10 moves the reporting period forward only nine months and seems to be overtaken by the announcement that Nicola Sturgeon has just made.
I am pleased that the cabinet secretary has accepted amendment 3. When we discussed in the committee the frequency of reporting, she said that three years felt about right to her, so I lodged amendment 3. I am pleased that she has altered her position and is now happy to have biannual reporting.
At stage 2, I lodged an amendment that was not able to be considered because it exceeded the financial limits and would therefore have required a financial memorandum. Amendments 4 and 5 are a simpler way of achieving the same thing.
Amendment 4 would require that, if the section 5 power has not been used by the time the first report on how and why it should, or should not, be exercised is laid before the Parliament, a draft statutory instrument must be laid before the Parliament within three months. Given what the cabinet secretary said, I do not see that that would create any problems for her, because the Government intends to do such a thing anyway. Amendment 4 addresses the concerns that the power has never been used by requiring that it be used within three months of the first report being laid.
Amendment 5 is dependent on amendment 4 and will not be moved if amendment 4 falls.
The cabinet secretary tempted us into believing that she would make a radical change today and announce a big expansion of the remit of the FOI regime. However, although she says said that the expansion will start, we do not have any timing for when it will happen. It needs to be concluded by the start of the summer recess. If it is not, the Scottish National Party will have been six years in office without having implemented it. That is a great disappointment.
We also need to ensure that the changes go way beyond what the cabinet secretary currently plans. Her proposal is a timid response to a demand that has been coming for a long time. I admit that my party’s Administration did not implement such an expansion, but the SNP has been in office six years and has done nothing about it. We cannot wait any longer for the regime to change.
I support Elaine Murray’s proposals on timing and frequency of reporting. I am pleased that the cabinet secretary has conceded the change from three years to two years. Elaine Murray’s other proposals are sensible. I hope that the cabinet secretary will review what she has announced today and be much more ambitious than she currently plans to be.
I speak in favour of amendment 10, which is an excellent move in the right direction.
Originally, there was no mention of bringing new parties under FOI at this stage, but there clearly was a public appetite and a campaign to do that. I was particularly concerned about the likes of Glasgow City Council being able to chop bits of themselves off as arm’s-length bodies and thereby reduce the scope of FOI, so I was pleased that the cabinet secretary agreed to a specific date for a review.
As has been mentioned, at stage 2 the Finance Committee questioned whether that date could be brought forward to before the next election. I am delighted that that will now happen and I welcome the cabinet secretary’s further commitment today.
I do not have much to add, except to say that I recognise the appetite for further extension of coverage. Some people, including Willie Rennie, have made a point about erosion. I hoped that he would find it within himself to welcome the fact that I am dealing with that, but I am sure that the issue will continue to exercise Parliament in the months and years to come. I look forward to those discussions.
I remind members that, if amendment 10 is agreed to, amendment 2 will be pre-empted.
The question is, that amendment 10 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (North East Scotland) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Walker, Bill (Dunfermline) (Ind)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Goldie, Annabel (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McDougall, Margaret (West Scotland) (Lab)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMahon, Siobhan (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Urquhart, Jean (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
The result of the division is: For 63, Against 52, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 10 agreed to.
Amendment 3 moved—[Elaine Murray]—and agreed to.
Amendment 4 moved—[Elaine Murray].
The question is, that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMahon, Siobhan (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Goldie, Annabel (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (North East Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Urquhart, Jean (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Walker, Bill (Dunfermline) (Ind)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 39, Against 75, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 4 disagreed to.
Amendment 5 not moved.
Amendment 11 moved—[Nicola Sturgeon].
The question is, that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Goldie, Annabel (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (North East Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Urquhart, Jean (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Walker, Bill (Dunfermline) (Ind)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow) (SNP)
Against
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McDougall, Margaret (West Scotland) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMahon, Siobhan (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 75, Against 40, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 11 agreed to.
After section 1A
Group 5 is on Scottish public authorities: Glasgow Housing Association. Amendment 14, in the name of Iain Gray, is the only amendment in the group.
15:45
The effect of amendment 14 is straightforward. It would simply extend the reach of freedom of information legislation to include Glasgow Housing Association by adding it to the schedule of Scottish public authorities that are so covered. The purpose of the amendment is, at least at the margins, to redeem the bill so that it does the thing that everyone expected that it was going to do, which is to extend FOISA into areas where pretty well everyone believes that it should go.
When the SNP formed a Government in 2007, it said that it was going to extend FOISA using section 5 powers. After three years, in 2010, it finally consulted on an extension, but it failed to act on the outcome, instead deciding to bring forward primary legislation. Surely, it was thought, that would be the vehicle for the extension of FOISA cover that the SNP had demanded in opposition and promised in government, yet, notwithstanding the cabinet secretary’s announcement a few moments ago, the bill fails to do the one thing that most people believe it should do, which is to extend the 2002 act. Amendment 14 would at least allow us to claim that the bill does that, if only to include one body—GHA.
I should say that I have no axe to grind with GHA. After all, as housing minister, I was instrumental in setting it up. I would rather have included all housing associations in the amendment, but the fact is that the 2010 consultation consulted only on GHA, so it is the only association that is ready for inclusion. Indeed, respondents were almost universally in favour of that extension. In any case, of the 15,000 council tenants who lost FOISA rights when council housing stock was transferred to housing associations, about 10,000 became GHA tenants, so it is well worth restoring at least their rights to information.
Will the member just save time by admitting that he made a mistake with the transfer to GHA?
The stock transfer to Glasgow Housing Association brought £1 billion of investment into housing in the city that Mr Mason purports to represent.
The 2010 consultation also consulted on the inclusion of other bodies, including contractors who build and maintain public facilities such as prisons, schools and hospitals. However, I did not include them in the amendment to avoid the argument that the costs involved would require a financial memorandum that is not before us.
GHA argues that, in general terms, it provides information on request, so I do not believe that significant additional costs can be identified. The amendment is a worthwhile extension to FOISA, it is ready to go, it covers a body that is prepared for it, widespread support has already been demonstrated for it, and it is within the scope of even this limited bill.
I cannot see how anyone who is sincere in their commitment to transparency can fail to support amendment 14. Government support for it would be a powerful signal that the cabinet secretary is sincere in the promise that she has now made of swift progress on the FOI regime.
I move amendment 14.
We are very short of time. I call Willie Rennie and ask him to be brief.
I support Iain Gray’s proposal. It is even more important than I thought it was because of the cabinet secretary’s earlier timid and limited announcement on the extension of FOI. The reversal—the extension of the FOI rights—will not repair the damage caused by the erosion of recent years. I believe that Iain Gray’s proposal will put some of that right, so I support it.
I understand the intentions behind amendment 14. As Iain Gray has said, I have expressed sympathy for the proposal in the past, and no doubt I will do so again. However, I have to say that it is a bit rich for a member of the party that set up Glasgow Housing Association and failed to ensure that it was subject to FOI to come to the chamber now and lecture this Government.
I also say to Willie Rennie that it is a bit galling for a member of a party in a United Kingdom Government that is not releasing the devolution files under freedom of information to come here and lecture this Government on openness and transparency. The fact that this Government will be the first to introduce a section 5 order will not be lost on the public who are interested in this issue.
It might shock Iain Gray to hear this—and he might not hear it again for a long time—but I agree with him to a certain extent. It is important to ensure that tenants and indeed others can obtain information not just from GHA but from other registered social landlords. We now have the new Scottish housing charter, which provides a means for tenants and other customers to access information from all RSLs, not just GHA, and I want to see how the charter operates in practice before deciding whether GHA and other RSLs should be brought within the scope of the 2002 act. If, despite the charter, there is evidence of a need for further access to information, a section 5 order extending coverage will be brought forward. As a result, although I do not support amendment 14, I do not rule out extending coverage to GHA and other RSLs in future. However, we should allow time to consider whether the right information is being provided under the housing charter.
Finally, in inviting Iain Gray to withdraw amendment 14, I simply say to him that this Government’s actions on freedom of information speak much louder than the Opposition’s words.
This Government usually speaks on FOISA in the courts when it is trying to resist rulings that it should release information.
If the cabinet secretary believes that her housing legislation gives GHA tenants access to the information that they could get under FOISA, what earthly reason does she have for not simply voting yes to amendment 14? Her choice is simple: she can demonstrate her sincerity and commitment to transparency, or she can choose to take the opportunity to try to refight a political fight that she lost 12 years ago.
I press amendment 14.
The question is, that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McDougall, Margaret (West Scotland) (Lab)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMahon, Siobhan (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Urquhart, Jean (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Goldie, Annabel (West Scotland) (Con)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lamont, John (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (North East Scotland) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Walker, Bill (Dunfermline) (Ind)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division: For 41, Against 74, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 14 disagreed to.
After section 3
Group 6 is on functions of the commissioner. Amendment 12, in the name of Paul Martin, is the only amendment in the group.
Amendment 12 seeks to clarify the range of bodies that are covered by the 2002 act and which will be covered by the provisions in the legislation before us today by requiring the Scottish Information Commissioner to update and maintain a list of all organisations that are subject to the 2002 act. I note the commissioner’s comment that she already maintains a partial list, but I have to say that I find it unacceptable that the commissioner, of all people, should be placed in a position in which she is able to maintain only a partial list. If we are serious about improving the public’s experience of seeking information from the Information Commissioner and indeed from many of the Government bodies that have been referred to, it should not be beyond the Government to keep and update an accurate and comprehensive list.
I move amendment 12.
I appreciate the intention behind amendment 12, but I understand that, as has already been referred to, the Scottish Information Commissioner has raised concerns about the difficulties and resource implications of keeping such a list fully up to date. As has already been noted, the commissioner endeavours to maintain information on bodies that are covered by the legislation to help individuals who want to know whether a particular body is covered. As I understand it, the commissioner’s main concern is that it would not be possible to guarantee that any list that was published was always fully accurate and up to date. As a result, unfortunately, I am not able to support the amendment, but I hope—indeed, I am sure—that the commissioner will continue to do whatever possible to clarify which bodies are covered by FOI.
I have listened carefully to what the cabinet secretary has said, and I remain unconvinced. We should recognise that the maintenance and updating of a list cannot be the most challenging proposal to have been put before the Parliament. For example, we have passed legislation on a register of tartans, which I recognise may be somewhat different from the updating of a list, but a similar principle applies.
There are many other examples of Government bodies that are required to maintain lists. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs maintains the national lists of agriculture and vegetable crops, including amateur varieties. If it is good enough for DEFRA to face the challenge of maintaining such lists, surely it is not beyond the Scottish Information Commissioner to ensure that a comprehensive list is made available to ensure that we improve the public’s experience of seeking to access public information.
I press amendment 12.
The question is, that amendment 12 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Baker, Richard (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Baxter, Jayne (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beamish, Claudia (South Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (West Scotland) (Con)
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (Lab)
Dugdale, Kezia (Lothian) (Lab)
Eadie, Helen (Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
Fee, Mary (West Scotland) (Lab)
Ferguson, Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (Lab)
Findlay, Neil (Lothian) (Lab)
Finnie, John (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Goldie, Annabel (West Scotland) (Con)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Iain (East Lothian) (Lab)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Hume, Jim (South Scotland) (LD)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Johnstone, Alison (Lothian) (Green)
Kelly, James (Rutherglen) (Lab)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Macdonald, Lewis (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Macintosh, Ken (Eastwood) (Lab)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
Marra, Jenny (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Provan) (Lab)
McCulloch, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McDougall, Margaret (West Scotland) (Lab)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
McInnes, Alison (North East Scotland) (LD)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMahon, Siobhan (Central Scotland) (Lab)
McNeil, Duncan (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab)
McTaggart, Anne (Glasgow) (Lab)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Murray, Elaine (Dumfriesshire) (Lab)
Pearson, Graeme (South Scotland) (Lab)
Pentland, John (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Rennie, Willie (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD)
Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)
Scott, Tavish (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Simpson, Dr Richard (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Smith, Drew (Glasgow) (Lab)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Biagi, Marco (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Burgess, Margaret (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Campbell, Aileen (Clydesdale) (SNP)
Campbell, Roderick (North East Fife) (SNP)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Crawford, Bruce (Stirling) (SNP)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Eadie, Jim (Edinburgh Southern) (SNP)
Ewing, Annabelle (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gibson, Rob (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Ingram, Adam (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Keir, Colin (Edinburgh Western) (SNP)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
MacAskill, Kenny (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
Mackay, Derek (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
MacKenzie, Mike (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
Maxwell, Stewart (West Scotland) (SNP)
McAlpine, Joan (South Scotland) (SNP)
McDonald, Mark (North East Scotland) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLeod, Aileen (South Scotland) (SNP)
McLeod, Fiona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (West Scotland) (SNP)
Neil, Alex (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Paterson, Gil (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Robertson, Dennis (Aberdeenshire West) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Russell, Michael (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thompson, Dave (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Urquhart, Jean (Highlands and Islands) (Ind)
Walker, Bill (Dunfermline) (Ind)
Watt, Maureen (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Wheelhouse, Paul (South Scotland) (SNP)
White, Sandra (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Wilson, John (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 49, Against 64, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 12 disagreed to.
Section 4—Historical periods
Group 7 relates to a minor adjustment. Amendment 13, in the name of the Nicola Sturgeon, is the only amendment in the group. I invite the cabinet secretary to speak to and move the amendment briefly.
Amendment 13 will make a small, entirely technical change to section 4 to clarify that an order determining what records should be treated as historical records may make provision for the modification of any “enactment” rather than any “rule”.
I move amendment 13.
Amendment 13 agreed to.
That ends the consideration of amendments.