Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee 06 November 2025
I agree with both witnesses. When the 2002 act came into effect, we saw it as being very positive compared with the legislation in other countries. For example, we do not charge a fee for making an FOI request; in fact, we do not even have to say that it is an FOI request, which is what happens in most countries. Once the request is made, it is the responsibility of the authority to recognise that it is an FOI request and to apply the relevant legislation appropriately.
The challenge that we have seen ever since my time as Scottish Information Commissioner, and which we are still seeing, is that we are not keeping pace with two things. The first of those is the way in which public services are being delivered—that is to say, through outsourcing. We anticipated that; indeed, the minister at the time said that it would be the next thing on the agenda. However, it has been the next thing on the agenda for the past 20 years, and we are not getting to grips with the need to encompass bodies that deliver public services with public money where rights to information are being lost or are not being afforded.
The second issue is, of course, the way in which information is now transmitted. Our law is based in part on the New Zealand law of 1986. Email hardly existed in 1986; people were still sending in letters for information, which is why there is a 20-day period for responding to requests. We are not keeping pace in that respect, or in relation to the way in which information is retained or circulated, which is a prominent part of the bill, too. We really have not got to grips with that, and the Covid experience of information between ministers and civil servants being exchanged offline has proven that the legislation cannot go where it is not allowed to go.