Meeting of the Parliament 20 June 2018
I welcome the debate and endorse everything in the Labour motion. It seems unkind to be here again, giving the Government another kicking, but I hope that this debate, which was engendered by the concerns of journalists over a year ago, will reinforce the importance of freedom of information.
The intervention report makes sobering reading. I commend the commissioner and his staff for a comprehensive piece of work that, beyond the specific case that is being investigated, shines a useful light on Scotland’s freedom of information regime more generally.
In response to Neil Findlay’s intervention, I note that paragraph 140 of the report says:
“There is nothing in FOI law or the Section 60 Code of Practice which permits authorities to treat certain groups of requesters less preferentially than others.”
I remind the Government that it can do only what is permitted by law. Notwithstanding that, I commend ministers for having accepted all the recommendations. Scottish ministers represent the most powerful public body in Scotland, and the FOl regime was introduced to enable the public to have greater access to information that is held by elected bodies and public authorities.
FOl is uncomfortable for those with power, but it is a vital part of open and transparent governance, and I am proud that this Parliament introduced a regime that is among the best in the world. However, FOl is only a small subset of transparency. Rhoda Grant’s motion talks of records of meetings. Recently, I have been studying the Government papers in the National Archives of Scotland relating to how the Scottish Office and Scottish ministers lost control of key powers over the governance and finances of the Palace of Holyrood. I have been struck by the fact that memos, notes and letters provide great detail of the affairs of the Lord Chancellor’s office, the Lord Chamberlain, the royal household and the Scottish development department of the time. It is vital that comprehensive, meaningful, accurate and substantive records are kept of the affairs of Government and public authorities.
In that regard, I draw members’ attention to paragraph 173 of the intervention report, which says:
“The examination of Scottish Government case files revealed significant gaps in the information recorded. In many cases, there was scant information contained in case files; in some there was no documentation whatsoever.”
That is an excellent example of how even a gold-standard FOl regime can be rendered ineffective if the information does not exist.
A further example of the need for a broader debate on transparency is provided by today’s announcement of a consultation on draft regulations to establish a register of persons with a controlling interest in land. Ministers say that that information will be free, which is welcome, but the bigger problem is that, to access information on the land over which such persons have a controlling interest, one has to pay £30. Scotland’s land information system—ScotLIS—was launched last year, following a commitment by John Swinney to provide a comprehensive source of information on the ownership, use and value of land. However, it is useless. Of course, business users get an excellent service and, instead of paying £30, pay only £3. Moreover, data on land that is owned by overseas companies has been published by Registers of Scotland, but it costs more than £1,500 plus VAT to obtain, whereas the equivalent data is made freely available by the Land Registry in England and Wales, and the United Kingdom Government is committed to creating the largest open land dataset in the world.
Five years ago, some journalists and campaigners from Scotland and Ireland set up an informal FOI club, and we collaborated on methods and sources. I am now in Parliament, and Rob Edwards and other members of that club now run The Ferret, which was a key part of the campaign by journalists a year ago.
FOl matters to everyone. We need to open up all the information and data that sit behind pay walls in Government, as we are already falling behind the ambitions that have been set by the Tories at Westminster. I do not want to be in that position, and I hope that the Scottish ministers agree with me.
15:04