The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.
All Official Reports of meetings in the Debating Chamber of the Scottish Parliament.
All Official Reports of public meetings of committees.
Displaying 2357 contributions
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 4 December 2025
Martin Whitfield
Excellent. I now move the meeting into private session.
09:32 Meeting continued in private until 10:15.Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 November 2025
Martin Whitfield
That is very helpful.
09:15Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 November 2025
Martin Whitfield
The reason I asked is that, unless committees have a procedure in place, through standing orders or some other method, by which designations can be started, processed and decided, we could end up in the situation that we are in with post-legislative scrutiny, in which lots of committees would love to do something and are genuinely interested in it, but, because they have such little control of their timetabling, it never comes about. We risk creating a solution that is never used, which would only perpetuate on-going frustration. At present, that frustration is directed towards the Scottish Government for its frankly glacial pace, but that could be turned on to committees if they have no way of fulfilling the requirements.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 November 2025
Martin Whitfield
Let us turn to the designation of a freedom of information officer. There has been a lot of support for that, but there has also been evidence to say that it is unnecessary. One of the challenges appears to be that the designation needs to be of someone who is high enough within an organisation to have an effect, whereas the work of freedom of information is frequently done by staff at a much lower level. How will we get over the challenge of holding a designated official responsible when internal documents will suggest that everything has been designated to a lowly person, things have gone wrong and it is their fault? How do we make sure that the designation works at the level that—I think—you anticipate, so that cultural change can be driven by a senior person without the blame being poured down the ladder to someone else?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 November 2025
Martin Whitfield
So, the purpose behind it is to reflect for freedom of information the success that data protection officers have brought to the system.
As a by-question, we have heard evidence that, if you then include records management, you are bringing together the three areas that are crucial to the issue and probably crucial to the cultural change that you have referred to. Did you consider merging those three roles in the bill?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 November 2025
Martin Whitfield
One thing that we have heard some evidence about is that very small organisations may struggle to provide that different role. However, you are suggesting that that role is complementary to the data protection role, for which there are no exclusions, so someone must be responsible for that. The resource implication is therefore very small for that designation, because it is probably the person who is doing it anyway.
10:00Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 November 2025
Martin Whitfield
That is very helpful.
I want to talk to the offences that have been suggested and considered. We have heard lots of different evidence about the matter, and you have mentioned that, although you would hope that a lot of those offences would never be used, the aim of the provisions is to change the culture. Do we need to create another offence just to change the culture and the approach to freedom of information?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 November 2025
Martin Whitfield
Are you comfortable with the unusual circumstance that the time for prosecution would run not from the event but from the start of the investigation? In essence, the three years for prosecution would not run from the destruction of documents but from the start of the investigation—unlike many offences, which are occasioned by the actual act. That might be inevitable because of the circumstances of the offence.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 November 2025
Martin Whitfield
Is that not the challenge, though? A reasonable person might think that it runs from the date on which something went into the shredder. However, if the facts did not come out until a few years later, and the time would then run from that investigation, it is my understanding of the—
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 27 November 2025
Martin Whitfield
Let me ask the question differently, then. Is it the case that there is no intention for a retrospective criminal offence that would cover events that occurred before the commencement of the act, irrespective of the fact that the time for prosecution might run from the point of the start of an investigation?