Chamber and committees

Some things have been included and some things have not, because we are trying to get a consensus. I might well have wanted to have more things in the bill that have not been put in, but we are trying to make proposals on issues where there was less controversy and more consensus among stakeholders.

You are talking about one of the areas not only where there was less consensus but where issues were raised about legislative competence. Therefore, the view was that it was probably better not to include it in the bill.

There are quite a few matters that we could have included in the bill but did not, because we thought that we might run into problems and that there would be different views. We have attempted to coalesce the proposals around areas that have broad support.

Those issues could be raised at stage 2.

The hope is that the bill will lead to culture change, where more information is proactively published. As the Information Commissioner outlined last week, the codes of practice would outline the type of information that it was useful for an organisation to publish, and he would work with the organisation in relation to that.

It is also hoped that that would lead to a reduction in the number of FOI requests and, therefore, that there would be savings as a result of that cultural change, because information would already be readily available. The Information Commissioner’s office says that we can often predict the kinds of FOI requests that are going to be made. If that information was proactively published, the public would not need to rely on the FOI mechanism.

You are absolutely correct that the existing legislation requires that. Indeed, international law requires it, but the reality is that the system is not working well. The way that the legislation was framed in 2002 has meant that the system has not worked in the way that was envisaged. People who are actively involved in the sector believe that a proactive publication duty and very clear codes of practice and guidance from the Information Commissioner about what that actually means are far more effective. Indeed, that is how it is done in other countries, where it appears to be successful.

In general, it would be a matter for committees themselves, but including the detail in the standing orders could be an option. It is the transparency of the process that would ensure whether it was robust. All stakeholders—the sector, private bodies, representative bodies and the Scottish Government—would be involved and would have the opportunity to make representations. It would be a far more transparent and, I would argue, robust process because of the public scrutiny that it would involve. However, it would be an additional mechanism; it would not be instead of the existing mechanisms.

It is a hard question. Sometimes, the designation might be for only one small body that employs a relatively small number of people and does not work with a considerable amount of money; the Parliament might take the view, for political or other obvious reasons, that it should be compliant with the FOI legislation. At other times, the designation might be for a massive sector. Therefore, it is difficult to say, because it depends on the proposed designation, how much evidence is involved and how complex that is.

Very much so.

Yes. The bill was taken forward as a result of frustration with the Government’s failure to act. After a great deal of lobbying to try to get the Government to come forward with recommendations, Carole Ewart from the Campaign for Freedom of Information Scotland asked me whether I would be willing to take forward a member’s bill.

I am concerned. The bill is in the same position as a number of members’ bills. That is not the fault of any individual member; unfortunately, the Parliament is not geared up to provide support to members. I would have preferred it if the bill had come before the committee earlier in the parliamentary session, but my view is that there is still time.

I have met with the Government a number of times over the years during the bill process, but I have not really had feedback until it made a submission to the committee last week. I have had a great deal of feedback from other stakeholders, and we reflected that in the drafting of the bill.

The original draft bill, which the Campaign for Freedom of Information in Scotland presented to me, has been amended quite substantially to take into account the views of stakeholders, including those who could be designated under the bill and the office of the Information Commissioner.

The policy intention behind the bill is not to add costs. As you will be aware, the 2002 act does not require anybody to create any new information; the requirement is simply to provide information that already exists. However, the intention of the bill is to effect a culture change with regard to proactive publication, and the view is that that will reduce costs.

The committee will have heard that, in itself, the bill will not automatically lead to any new designations. However, if there were new designations, those bodies would also be required to conform to proactive publication.

The view is that the codes of practice on proactive publication that would come from the Information Commissioner would make it very clear to organisations what they would require to do to comply with the duties, but obviously that would apply only to information that already exists. I know that the Information Commissioner spoke last week about the consequences that could flow from proactive publication, which could lead to organisations providing information in a different way and in more of a standard data format. Every committee in the Parliament would probably recognise that as an issue.

As you know, the legislation does not require new information to be provided. I hope that proactive publication would make it easier for the public to get information, reduce the number of FOI requests and ensure that any FOI requests were cheaper to process.