::To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to ensure that local authorities receive fair and sustainable funding settlements. (S6O-05561)

Scotland continues to lag behind the UK offshore wind farms’ local content target of 60 per cent. For example, there is no conditionality for local employment in the supply chain development statements that Crown Estate Scotland requires developers to produce. Those statements require developers to set out how much they spend in Scotland, the UK, the European Union and other countries, but they do not translate those capital commitments into local job creation. Does the cabinet secretary recognise that, for Scotland to meet its ambitious local content targets and deliver meaningful employment, there must be conditionality for local employment and training in the ScotWind process?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not vote. I would have voted no.

Scotland continues to lag behind the UK offshore wind farms’ local content target of 60 per cent. For example, there is no conditionality for local employment in the supply chain development statements that Crown Estate Scotland requires developers to produce. Those statements require developers to set out how much they spend in Scotland, the UK, the European Union and other countries, but they do not translate those capital commitments into local job creation. Does the cabinet secretary recognise that, for Scotland to meet its ambitious local content targets and deliver meaningful employment, there must be conditionality for local employment and training in the ScotWind process?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not vote. I would have voted no.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not vote. I would have voted no.

Scotland continues to lag behind the UK offshore wind farms’ local content target of 60 per cent. For example, there is no conditionality for local employment in the supply chain development statements that Crown Estate Scotland requires developers to produce. Those statements require developers to set out how much they spend in Scotland, the UK, the European Union and other countries, but they do not translate those capital commitments into local job creation. Does the cabinet secretary recognise that, for Scotland to meet its ambitious local content targets and deliver meaningful employment, there must be conditionality for local employment and training in the ScotWind process?

This Parliament was founded on the principles of accountability, openness and transparency, and the bill gives us the opportunity to build on those principles today. I have outlined the process that led to the provisions that are in the bill that we are considering, which I believe is the correct starting point.

I thank the committee for the scrutiny that it undertook in preparing its stage 1 report, all the stakeholders who engaged with the process, Carole Ewart from the Campaign for Freedom of Information in Scotland and those in my office for their work on the bill. I also thank the Scottish Information Commissioner, his team and all the former information commissioners who engaged with the process.

The only issue that is before us today is whether we agree with the general principles of the bill at stage 1. I have listened carefully to members’ speeches, and there seems to be a consensus that the public’s right to information is important, and that there must be accountability on public service delivery and transparency on the use of public money.

However, we must recognise that our current freedom of information regime has been in place for more than two decades and that the public, campaigners, organisations and Government have all experienced how it works, where it works well and what needs to change. That is why the current Information Commissioner and his predecessors support the bill. That is why the bill enjoys the support of so many organisations, and it is why so much of the evidence that was submitted, including from trade unions, care home relative campaigners and the third sector, supported the bill.

I will respond to some of the points that were made about specific provisions. On new designations, I agree with Daniel Johnson that this debate is also about the kind of Parliament that we want to have. It would not have been appropriate to put more detail on the process for designation in the bill, as that would be a matter for Parliament’s standing orders, but we must say that the role of this Parliament is to hold the Scottish Government to account. Given that the Scottish Government has failed for more than two decades to keep freedom of information where it should be, it is appropriate that more power is given to the Parliament and its committees.

The idea of creating a freedom of information officer role came from freedom of information officers. I know that, like his predecessor, the minister attends the annual events that many freedom of information officers go to, so he will have heard them explain their belief that the creation of such a role would give them the power to enforce freedom of information in their own organisations. Many of them are data protection officers, and they believe that the bill, which mirrors the provision of the data protection regime, would enable them to get their organisations to comply with the law.

Section 18, which would create a new criminal offence, is designed to deal with serious situations. The Information Commissioner has said that it would enable them to do their job better, where information is deliberately destroyed with the intent to avoid the law.

The vast majority of the public support the key principles of the bill, which is why we must agree to its general principles today. The way in which public services are delivered has changed significantly since the 2002 act. Multinationals such as Serco, G4S and Mitie are now providing public services and in receipt of public funding, and we no longer have the information rights that we had in relation to those services in 2002. If those services were still being provided by Government, they would be subject to freedom of information laws.

The Scottish ministers have consistently failed to come forward with legislative proposals in this area. When I met the minister on Thursday, he said, yet again, that, in his view, legislative change was not needed.

As I outlined in my opening speech, the committee has indicated its support for many of the provisions in the bill. I am disappointed by the amendment to the motion that has been lodged. I believe that the Parliament should send a very clear message that we will vote—

I fully agree with that.

The committee backed bringing companies that are jointly owned by the Scottish Government and other bodies into the scope of freedom of information law and recognised that the First Minister’s veto power is unnecessary. Of course, the First Minister has refused to rule out using the veto in relation to various current court cases. The committee recognised the benefit of other provisions in the bill, such as those on statutory freedom of information officers and greater enforcement powers for the Information Commissioner.

The bill includes provisions that were recommended by the Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee in the previous session of Parliament on a legal duty for proactive publication. That is in line with best international practice, was recommended by all four people who have held the post of Information Commissioner and is in accordance with codes of practice that are provided by the Information Commissioner.

The bill includes a new offence of destroying records with the intent to prevent disclosure before a freedom of information request is made. That provision mirrors existing offences that relate to the period after a freedom of information request has been made. That power is needed and is supported by the Information Commissioner, but it has a high test of criminal intent and would be used only in extreme cases.

The bill would also enable the Parliament’s committee system to act when the Scottish Government fails to do so. For example, that would mean that, if the Scottish Government failed to introduce proposals to extend freedom of information law to the whole care sector or, indeed, parts of it, or even one or two organisations, a committee could make proposals on that.

I look forward to hearing members’ contributions. I will address some of the other issues that are connected with the bill, such as that of costs, in my closing speech.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Freedom of Information Reform (Scotland) Bill.

14:33

I am not sure whether I can, because I am over time.