Meeting of the Parliament 17 February 2026 [Draft]
When people submit a freedom of information request, they are not making a political statement. They are usually asking something very ordinary, such as, “Who took this decision?”, “Why was this contract awarded?” or “How was this money spent?” Our responsibility in this Parliament is to ensure that the law behind such requests works, not just in theory but in practice.
It is not disputed that Scotland’s FOI framework needs to keep pace with how public services now operate. The way in which information is created, stored and shared has changed dramatically since 2002. Public services are delivered through increasingly complex arrangements, which often involve arm’s-length bodies, contractors and hybrid organisations. The legislation has not kept pace.
That is why I begin by recognising the work that Katy Clark has done in introducing the bill. She has forced Parliament to confront questions that have been left unanswered for far too long. That in itself is a valuable contribution that deserves acknowledgement, but recognising efforts does not remove our responsibility to scrutinise outcomes.
The evidence that was presented to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee was clear on one central point. Although reform is needed, the bill does not yet provide a workable or reliable route to delivering it. The committee was not persuaded that legislating for a general presumption in favour of disclosure would materially change behaviour. It was unconvinced that replacing publication schemes with a broad, proactive publication duty would achieve the cultural shift that is needed. The committee also raised serious concerns about whether the proposed designation powers and enforcement mechanisms were sufficiently developed or practical.
Those are not minor technical points. They go to the heart of whether the bill would improve access to information or would simply create new uncertainty for public bodies and frustration for the public. That is why the amendment in my colleague Sue Webber’s name is so important. It recognises the legitimate desire for reform, while making it clear that the bill in its current form cannot be the final answer. The amendment provides a clearer framework for how reform should be approached and sends a strong signal that the responsibility for introducing comprehensive, workable legislation ultimately rests with the Scottish Government.
Parliament is under real pressure in this debate. There is increasing public frustration about access to information and growing criticism of institutions that appear closed or opaque. In that context, it would be easy to present this debate as involving a binary choice between being in favour of transparency and being against it, but that framing is misleading. Supporting transparency means getting the law right. It means ensuring that reform is deliverable, properly resourced and capable of being implemented consistently across the public sector.
That is why Sue Webber’s amendment matters so much. It allows the Parliament to acknowledge the need for reform while being honest about the limitations of the bill. If it is agreed to, it will strengthen the message that the work must not end here.
Freedom of information underpins trust in public life. That trust is too important to be dealt with by creating uncertainty or delay. This debate should send a strong signal that change is needed, that the Parliament is ready to engage and that, in the next parliamentary session, the Government must deliver FOI legislation that truly works in practice.
To answer Jamie Greene’s question, we will vote for the general principles of the bill at stage 1, regardless of whether my colleague Sue Webber’s amendment is agreed to, because the conversation must continue.
Once again, I thank Katy Clark for her work.