Chamber and committees

Will Patrick Harvie give way?

Will the member accept an intervention?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In her remarks, the member stated that Lothian Buses is owned by the council in Edinburgh. She may want to correct the record and state that it is actually owned by a number of local authorities. Thank you.

Freedom of information is not an abstract constitutional principle; it is the cornerstone of public trust in Scotland’s institutions, and it is how people understand what their Government is doing, how decisions are made and whether power is being exercised responsibly. However, despite clear and compelling evidence that our freedom of information framework is outdated and has been outpaced, the Scottish Government has consistently failed to modernise it.

The Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee could not have been clearer: there is a need for FOI reform. The original 2002 act was designed for a totally different era—before digital comms, before arm’s-length organisation service delivery and before the complex landscape of publicly funded but not publicly listed bodies. The world has moved on, and Scotland’s FOI regime has not kept pace.

What we have witnessed from the Scottish Government over recent years is a refusal to accept that reality. Ministers insist that the fundamentals are still fit for purpose, yet we heard the Information Commissioner describe the pace at which they are bringing new bodies under FOI as “glacial”. Stakeholders told us that the publication scheme is outdated and ineffective. Public functions remain exempt simply because they sit outside traditional structures. None of that is fit for purpose.

Freedom of information is supposed to empower the public, not exhaust them. It should encourage transparency, not create barriers to it. I give credit to Katy Clark for taking on the work, because nobody else had any appetite to do so. She has done so because the Scottish Government has simply chosen not to. Although it is true that many elements of the bill need further refinement—that is a euphemism—the need for reform is not in dispute. It is urgent, overdue and undeniable.

We, in the Conservatives, find ourselves between a rock and a hard place today. The stage 1 report sets out the substantial and complex work that would be required to make the bill fully workable, future proofed and comprehensive, and the time that is left in this parliamentary session is extremely tight. Some might call it legislative constipation.

At the same time, constituents are watching. One wrote to me to say:

“It feels like every time FOI comes up, Parliament asks for more time while the law gets older and weaker.”

The frustration is real, and it reflects a wider public concern that delay looks a lot like protecting the Government from scrutiny.

I have lodged an amendment that reflects the reality that is before us. It would mean that, if Parliament agreed to the principles of the bill, we would also recognise

“the time pressure in the current parliamentary session and the views in the stage 1 report, including that Freedom of Information reform”

might ultimately need to be addressed in the new parliamentary session. That is not backing away from reform; it is being honest about the scale of the task ahead.

Let me be clear that the Scottish Conservatives will vote for the bill at stage 1. We will do so because the principles are sound and because Scotland cannot afford more drift. However, supporting the principles does not erase our concerns, and we are deeply worried about the sheer length of time and the level of work that will be required to resolve the issues that were identified by the committee. Progress must be real and not symbolic.

The public are watching the debate more closely than some in the chamber might realise. They demand transparency, not excuses. They expect us to strengthen their right to know, not to circle the wagons and shield the Scottish Government from scrutiny. The truth is that, every time FOI reform is delayed, resisted or redirected into yet another holding pattern, it reinforces the perception that those in power are more interested in protecting themselves than in serving the public interest. People can see the Government dragging its heels. They can see the areas in which loopholes remain open and enforcement powers remain weak, and they can see when proactive publication is discussed but never delivered. They rightly ask why, if we believe in openness, we will not modernise the law that guarantees it.

Let me be clear: this Parliament has a duty not to ministers or departments but to the people of Scotland. They are entitled to a system that is modern, transparent and future proofed. They are watching what we choose to do today, and they will judge us not on our words about transparency but on whether we deliver it for once.

By supporting the bill and my amendment today, while being frank about the reality of what remains to be done, we keep the pressure on the Scottish Government. We send a clear message that FOI reform cannot be allowed to drift into irrelevance, and we reaffirm that the public’s right to know must be strengthened, modernised and defended, both now and in the next parliamentary session.

I move amendment S6M-20815.1, to insert at end:

“, but, in so doing, highlights the time pressure in the current parliamentary session and the views in the stage 1 report, including that Freedom of Information reform should be addressed in the next parliamentary session.”

14:39

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In her remarks, the member stated that Lothian Buses is owned by the council in Edinburgh. She may want to correct the record and state that it is actually owned by a number of local authorities. Thank you.

Will Patrick Harvie give way?

The amendment will not prevent the bill proceeding, as many members across the chamber have remarked. It simply makes it clear that we have a very challenging timeline. It is practical and commonsense—that is all over, but never mind.

Will the member take an intervention?

Will the minister give way?

Will the member accept an intervention?