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: 20 November 2025
Martin Whitfield
But that sensitive information is already protected.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 20 November 2025
Martin Whitfield
It is for that exact reason that the committee is asking itself how, subject to the Parliament’s decision on the bill before us, we might future proof that situation in which a First Minister might use the veto. In that case, the only remedy for an individual would be, as Ross Grimley has said, to take the First Minister to court and have a judicial review of the process of using that veto, which might have been used because of, say, national security or any of the other exemptions.
This is one of the few areas of the bill where the responses that we have received have been overwhelmingly articulated in the same way, which is as follows: “This veto has existed from day 1, it has never been used, and we don’t think it is necessary.” The Scottish Government is making a statement to the people of Scotland that there is some information that, rightly and for extremely good reasons, cannot be disclosed, but the power is never going to sit just with the First Minister—there are layers before that.
I just wonder whether this brings us back to what we have been talking about with regard to the pause and people failing to get the information that they think they are entitled to or that they think exists. Is the Scottish Government actually the outlier? I understand the reasons behind the argument, but can I suggest that you think again—or at least consider the issue again?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 20 November 2025
Martin Whitfield
Absolutely. I am sorry, Ruth—you wanted to come in.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 20 November 2025
Martin Whitfield
And there is a value in freedom of information.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 20 November 2025
Martin Whitfield
Good morning. I welcome everyone to the 22nd meeting in 2025 of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee.
I have received apologies from Emma Roddick. I welcome Rona Mackay, who attends as committee substitute. Good morning, Rona.
Our first item is an evidence-taking session on the Freedom of Information Reform (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. We are joined by Katy Clark MSP, who introduced the bill.
I welcome our witnesses. David Hamilton is the Scottish Information Commissioner, and Paul Mutch is deputy head of policy and information in the commissioner’s office. Good morning.
I will kick straight off with questions. I will come to you first, David, as commissioner.
In the spirit of a starter for 10, will you expand on why you think that reform of primary legislation is needed at this stage? That is a nice, easy opening question.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 20 November 2025
Martin Whitfield
That is fine.
I am going to jump about a bit and come to Jill McPherson regarding the listed public authorities. Is the review still on-going or has it concluded?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 20 November 2025
Martin Whitfield
Thank you, minister, and thank you, Jill McPherson and Ross Grimley, for your evidence and for attending the committee this morning. I know that you are going to write to us. We know where you are, and you know where we are.
11:01 Meeting continued in private until 11:24.Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 20 November 2025
Martin Whitfield
Yes.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 20 November 2025
Martin Whitfield
I go back to the concept in the bill of a movement to proactive publication. You have set out your response to that and the concerns about it. Would the Government support it if a limitation to the specific information that needs to be proactively published was specified through secondary legislation or guidance, or, to look at it the other way, if there were very clear exemptions to proactive publication? Could a process shift the view of the Government on its stance on institutions moving to proactive publication?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 20 November 2025
Martin Whitfield
That is helpful. Interestingly, in its submission, the Law Society of Scotland talked about your lack of power with regard to the inspection of electronic devices and things like that. You have already talked about certain areas in which things need to be tightened up because they were missed or because they just need to be tightened up. Have you considered what other powers you need and whether the bill might be the vehicle to provide you with those powers? Such powers could include the seizure of electronic devices or access to AI databases in California to see what is in them.