Meeting of the Parliament 20 June 2018
It is often the case that when people talk of democracy they think of voting, and when they talk of Parliament they think of powers, but the reality is that democracy and Parliament are reliant on much more than those simple narrow factors. Civil liberties, the rule of law, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the transparency of Government are all vital to the work that we do in Parliament. Government of the people for the people demands transparency, because without it we cannot know what the Government is doing in our name and in our interests.
That why the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 was such an important addition to the statute book, and it has been shown to work. From high-profile scandals to the day-to-day statistics that we use in Parliament, the act is an important part of our democracy.
The Scottish Information Commissioner’s report is so concerning because it points to Government conduct and behaviours that do not uphold that important aspect of our democracy—from a lack of clarity on request handling, to the influence of special advisers on clearance and as a filtering function, to evidence of deliberate delays of information while communications plans are put in place, to inadequate record keeping. Perhaps the most worrying finding is that there is a twin-track FOI process—for members of the public and for members of the press and MSPs.
The minister would do well to take the commissioner’s words more seriously. He said:
“changes are required for consistency with both the letter and spirit of FOI law”.
It is not good enough to dodge the question whether the law has been broken; the question is in the report for the Government to answer. The seriousness of the commissioner’s report is made clear by the fact that he requires that changes be made by September this year.
The reality is that the Scottish Government is failing to uphold the standards that we all expect of it when it comes to transparency. That is not limited to freedom of information. It is disappointing that the minister confined his remarks to freedom of information requests, because the issue is much broader than that, and includes even the most basic and fundamental matter of ministerial correspondence. Correspondence might seem to be mundane, but it is vital to the work that we do in Parliament. It is the lifeblood of what we do to gain answers and insights for our constituents.
However, the reality is that, even on correspondence, the Government is falling behind our expectations. Simple acknowledgements are taking two weeks or more to be sent, which means that constituents regularly wait for six weeks or more, and up to 10 weeks, to gain answers. It is the same old wheeze that we see time and again in the public sector: acknowledgement is delayed in order to gain more time to provide answers and observe due process.
I would like the minister to provide clarity on the Government’s view on whether it needs to do better on minutes. Understanding of who the Government is meeting and for what purposes, and of what commitments have been given when it has had meetings is vital.
I gently suggest that the Government look at the work of the mayor of London’s office. On 19 April, the deputy mayor met the deputy commissioner of the Metropolitan Police with two officials from City hall. I can tell members that because the minutes are published bi-monthly: the information is on the office’s website. That is simple and straightforward. There is not a lot of detail, but there is enough to see who was there and what was discussed. That is a simple suggestion. The approach is not very complicated, and I fail to understand why the Government cannot be open and transparent about whom it meets and when it meets them.
15:13