Skip to main content
Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 4 May 2021
  6. Current session: 13 May 2021 to 30 December 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 1800 contributions

|

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Freedom of Information Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 27 November 2025

Katy Clark

The advice that I had was that it was sufficiently clear. However, I am open to amendments. The provision is a technical amendment, so if the view is that it is not sufficiently belt and braces, there is scope to amend it. We are very amenable to discussions.

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Freedom of Information Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 27 November 2025

Katy Clark

I will bring in Carole Ewart on that, because she has done a huge amount of work on the issue.

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Freedom of Information Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 27 November 2025

Katy Clark

I think that the Scottish Information Commissioner gave some real examples in relation to that last week. The intention is to ensure that the person who seeks the information gets the information that they are entitled to. The amendment to the 2002 act would enable the Scottish Information Commissioner to assist in that process, so an exemption is appropriate in order to enable the legislation’s intentions to be delivered. The Information Commissioner spoke about real examples last week.

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Freedom of Information Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 27 November 2025

Katy Clark

As was outlined in last week’s evidence, we must give power to the Information Commissioner. All the evidence seems to suggest that their having power acts as a deterrent and ensures that bodies comply with their requirements. In effect, that is a way of policing the bill’s implementation.

The provision that you have just raised, the offences under the 2002 act and the new offence that the bill proposes are in place not because we believe that they would be used regularly—we hope that they would never be used—but as a deterrent and to give power to the Information Commissioner.

I know that the commissioner gave a specific example last week of using his powers to ensure that there was compliance before having to take formal steps. There was another example of that in the newspapers this week. I hope that, although the bill would give the Information Commissioner powers, that does not mean that they would have to be used. However, those powers would ensure that public bodies complied with reasonable and lawful requests that were being made.

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Freedom of Information Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 27 November 2025

Katy Clark

Last week was the first time that we have had a detailed response from the Scottish Government, so we have not really been able to take its views into account before. There has been a consensus that, because the power has never been used, it should be removed, and that, with regard to public trust, it is inconsistent to have that power in place. At the end of the day, those matters are political, but proposals have been made over many years that the power should be taken away because it is not needed.

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Freedom of Information Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 27 November 2025

Katy Clark

Exactly. The hope is that the provision would not be used, but there might be extreme cases in which the Information Commissioner felt that it was in the public interest for the matter to be taken forward.

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Freedom of Information Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 27 November 2025

Katy Clark

If it is okay, I will bring in Carole Ewart.

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Prostitution (Offences and Support) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 26 November 2025

Katy Clark

Yes, of course.

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Pre-budget Scrutiny 2026-27

Meeting date: 26 November 2025

Katy Clark

My question is about fire services. I hope that the cabinet secretary is making strong representations on that aspect of the budget. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has advised that its total capital requirement to 2030-31 is £354 million and that, if its annual budget were to remain at £47 million over that period, there would be a gap of £119 million. The cabinet secretary will be well aware of the poor condition of much of the fire service’s estate and, indeed, the inadequate decontamination facilities that are available for many firefighters. Therefore, is it acceptable for there to be such a shortfall?

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Prostitution (Offences and Support) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 26 November 2025

Katy Clark

As you say, Ash, there seems to be support for three pillars of your bill from what I will refer to as both sides of the argument. However, there seem to be quite conflicting views on the fourth pillar, which is the principle of criminalising the purchase of sex.

One of the arguments seems to be that criminalising purchasers might have the unintended consequence of placing people who continue to sell sex at greater risk. A specific issue that has been raised is that it would be difficult for checks to take place with potential clients, and the legislation is likely to lead to there being less time to carry out such checks. What is your response to that? Is there any validity in that argument?