 Ysbytyn'r wrthymau yw ddwybod i fuwys y заesbeth y sparkedy dim y gallu ddim yn 2023. Rwyf wedi'i wath gennym eu ddim yn mynd i'ch addysg yma, a mae gennym eu dymell ymd Budd Llywodraeth. Y gŵf yma yn y ddiwyddo i'r ddysgu rhwng Llywodraeth 3 i ym Mlyg. Oes i chi'n cymellio hefyd ac yn y pryd yn mynd i'r hoffo Llywodraeth? Ysbytyr ffeydd. I can I say good morning to the Minister for Parliamentary Business and I would like to welcome Stephen McGregor, Ian Hockenhall and Jill Macpherson who joined the minister today. I'm just going to plunge straight into questions unless you wanted anything to open with. I just want to say a few words so that you feel free to do so. I'm just saying it's a pleasure for me to be here in front of the committee to discuss everything that has to do with my remit and your remit as well. I hope that you are aware that over the past couple of years I have tried to have sought to have a good working relationship with this committee and with yourself in particular, convener, so that we can and I think it's important that that continues over the coming period. I'm sure that there is a whole sack of matters that we will be touching many of the topics that are here, hence the reason I have the equivalent of an MGM chorus line here with me of officials. I look forward to discussing that with the committee today. Thank you very much. Can I just echo the very strong relationship between this committee and yourself but also at the clerking level with your officials and the assistants that's given? On that point, that's an important point for us all to make this work because we are at the end of the day the face of what's everything that's happening but all the hard work that happens behind us with the officials and clerks to make sure that everything works. Let's see where this relationship goes. Can I pass over to you, Ivan? Thank you very much, convener, minister and officials. I want to touch on the area of voter registration and you'll have seen the evidence session with the electoral commission recently on that subject. Clearly concerns from our side about both the apparent level of voters, not registered, but the accuracy of some of the numbers that were put on the table. I suppose that I'd like to understand what conversations the Government's had with the electoral commission in that regard and what you see as a way forward potentially to tackle some of those challenges. Ironically, I had a meeting with the electoral commission yesterday with regard to that. Obviously you can see our figures where we were at 81 per cent accuracy compared to other devolved nations. My discussion with officials on how we go forward is that we can't keep doing the same thing over and over again because clearly we're not getting the accuracy that we need and for me it's probably a case of looking at other ways and other ideas, looking at what's happening in other nations across the world as well by its practice and seeing if there is a way we can do it. Many people will say that it's a case of education of the voters themselves and letting them know that I don't think it's as simple as that. I think there's something that we really need to look at that. Do I have that one idea that I think it's going to make the difference overnight? I don't think so at this stage but on the whole my belief is that I've asked officials to come up with ideas and look at different ways of bringing it forward. I don't have any detail on that right at this moment but I'm quite happy as always to keep the committee updated on that. I think that when we looked at it and then we've had correspondence back from electoral commission after that there seemed to be at least two major issues. One was people not registering at all and then what seemed to be at least as big a cohort possibly bigger of people being registered at the wrong address and that seemed to be adding up to that big number that they've been talking about and clearly both of those will probably require different approaches. As you and I know as well there is an issue with regards to certain cohorts in certain parts of constituencies in your constituency and my constituency probably in every constituency across Scotland where there is certain people that don't register or have fallen off the register to a certain degree and I think we need to look at ways to... I think it's a two-pronged approach. I think that it's up to us as Polyntitions to engage with the public and ensure that they want to actually get involved in the democratic process but also think that there needs to be a process there that makes sure that these people are registered as well. I'll maybe bring Ian in at this point just to maybe if there's anything else you want to add. Just probably best to highlight the electoral form consultation which ran over the winter and in that we specifically asked for views on how to improve registration. One of the top suggestions that we had was talking about automatic registration or involuntary registration where essentially electoral registration officers proactively consult other sources of information and give people right to people and say, we think that this is your correct address. We're going to put you on the register unless you object. The Welsh Government are quite interested in that and they're taking forward some possible measures that they might do in their legislation, which is slightly ahead of our legislative plan, so it's quite interesting to see what they're doing. Also quite interestingly, the Scottish Assessors Association, which is the representative body for electoral registration officers, has written to the Welsh Parliament in that process highlighting some concerns about that automatic registration proposal because it does sound quite attractive. One of the concerns that they've raised is really that they might end up adding out-of-date information and make the inaccuracy point worse in some ways. They're a bit concerned about that and they're not saying that they can't do it, but just to illustrate the complexity involved here and the risk of actually getting it wrong or making it worse instead of making it better, we've got a meeting with the Assessors Association, the Electoral Management Board and the Electoral Commission in December to look at further ideas and explore possible options as well. We hope that that would feed into the bill process. I'm extremely interested in what's happening in Wales and what their plans are. When I talk to my equivalent down in Wales, I'll be questioning how they're doing and how things are going because, as I keep saying, there's no point in just doing the same stuff because it ain't working. I think two further points briefly. You're right that there are a lot of unintended consequences when you start doing those things. We've certainly heard that people may not want to be on the electoral register because they worry that it triggers other issues where they'd rather not be visible for reasons good or bad, but certainly taking that data and putting it on the electoral register and then people confirming it may be a route forward would be really interesting to see where that goes. I'd be good to get a sense of timescales when you can come back with something. The other point, finally, is that the Government is looking to do some other work to help to understand the macro numbers a bit better because certainly comparing census data with registration data and looking at it historically may also give us a clearer perspective on what that gap actually is because there seem to be a lot of dubiety around how the missing numbers work. On your first point, I'm happy to come back to you with the details and timescales when we get to that stage as well. With regards to the detail, Ian is probably better to give you more detail on that. I think that we're interested to work with the Electoral Commission on that as well. We were a little confused about some of the figures also, so I think that that's something that we're taking forward. Great. Thank you very much. If I can just dig a bit more into that. There seems to have been a historic view, rightly or wrongly, that there were procedural challenges with registering to vote, which was the reason that people were giving, but some of the more current research is suggesting more attitudinal reasons in actively choosing not to register to vote. I was wondering whether Scottish Government have done any work or had any thoughts on those two different systems because I think that historically ministers, as you said, there is a responsibility on politicians to go out and find those people, urge them to register to vote and then hopefully persuade them to vote for you, but that seems to be very much the procedural side of it and one and argument that we have had for decades and decades, but I think to echo what Ivan and indeed yourself have said, the figures are showing more than that. I suppose about the attitudinal question is, is it a group of people who don't want to put their heads over the parapet on this public document or are you aware of any other attitudinal reasons that may positively lead people not to want to register? On the whole, you bring up a valid point and there's a cynicism about the political process worldwide in general. I think that people have more access to data than they've ever had in their life, sometimes not of it, accurate and so you end up with various attitudes and people thinking that the whole political process is a disappointment or not working and that's where I say we as politicians have to take up that responsibility and that maturity and that leadership role to try and make sure we push that forward, but on the whole I don't have anything right here right now where I can say we have for sure the idea that people are intentionally taking themselves other than anecdotal information that we all have. It seems to be one of the challenges. We all have subjective evidence, but there's very little objective evidence. We are aware that when the voters have something they want to vote for, they will register, they will go through the process and they will come out. There's a number of experiences in my time here where that has happened and that's why I always revert back to, well, regardless of our political persuasion, we should be the ones that are actually making sure that the public do engage and do want to vote and I think it's said down to us and we're part of the solution but not all the solution. Although certainly when the total numbers go up we seem to have a particular problem here in Scotland about the the inaccuracy of the registration which appears to be historic and you know when we were looking into it similarly with discussions with the Electoral Commission and we've had some responses but still not satisfactory to go on. Steven, did you want to come in? I mean minister, I'm interested to hear maybe a little bit more from you about why you think we've got this situation in Scotland as you've pointed out where we are not faring as well in terms of registration completeness compared with other parts of the United Kingdom. 600,000 to a million Scots according to the Electoral Commission have not registered. Can you maybe elucidate a bit more about the why? Why is that the case in your discussions with the Electoral Commission yesterday? Did you get down to any deep whys? If both I and the Electoral Commission had come to that conclusion at the end of yesterday's meeting we would have enacted something now to actually sort it. It's a lot more as this conversation we've already had Mr Kerr. There's a lot more variables in this whole scenario where we need to really get to the stage of getting the data correctly and we need to make sure that we know. I've already spoken as I've colleagues here today about anecdotal reasons as we know why people won't register or some of the inaccuracies in the thing. All I can do is assure you that myself and my officials are working towards getting that information for us. Do you think that the Electoral Commission should do a bit more research on this then? At the minute, we all seem to be bringing our hands and I think rightly so because this is a huge democratic deficit that we have in Scotland in terms of people not voluntarily registering to vote. But the fact that none of us seem to know definitively why this is what series of you said you're right, there are many variables, but would it be important in your opinion that the Electoral Commission do the research and present those variables to us so that we can have an informed, structured discussion about it? I'm happy to work with the Electoral Commission because I think that it's all of us that have responsibility for this, the Electoral Commission, and I'm quite happy to work with it to find a way to get the detail and the data that we need further to take this to break down so that I can sit here in front of you and say, this is the issue, here's my solution. Would it help us all, wouldn't it? I hope that over the years that you and I have worked together, Mr Kerr, you'll be aware that I tend to try and find the solution. Believe it or not, Mr Kerr and I don't pick a fight with each other all the time. We do actually sit down and have the discussion about how we can find solutions to many of the challenges that we face, and I think that it's down to us to actually... I want to be in that position where I can sit here in front of you and say, here's the issue, I think I can address it this way. What do you think? I don't believe I've got a monopoly on all good ideas. What do you think and how can we deal with this? I agree with you about our working relationship as well. I'm very happy to put an official record. I actually like the minister, personally. You said that numerous occasions as well. I think it's important that we have that stated very firmly. Can I ask further, Gavira? The rather than Hamilton West by-election was the first time that voter ID had been part of our electoral experience for our voters. It went really well. The reports that have come from the returning officer for the by-election are very encouraging. We've exchanged views in the past about voter ID. Are you becoming more reassured that our voters in Scotland are, they prize their vote and understand that showing a little bit of ID is fine? Ironically, Mr Kerr, we've been discussing for the past half hour about what barriers to people being able to get their vote. Now that we're talking about another barrier, I'm still not convinced that that's the way forward for us to use voter ID. I, again, could anecdotally, when as an activist in the election, I was aware of a level of confusion with many of the voters as they were coming out as to how they were going to exercise their right. I'll bring Ian in to give you the detail from the official's point of view. In the meeting that we had with the Electoral Commission yesterday, they were highlighting some of the work done at the rather glim by-election, including handing out complaint cards or feedback cards in the polling station, so if someone had a problem, potentially about ID, it diffused the tension. We thought that was an interesting idea. They mentioned that there was one of the by-elections in England. I think it was the Nadine Dorris replacement by-election, where apparently there had been a bit of hostility in some of the polling places where people hadn't got their ID and it led to abuse for polling staff and so on, so we thought that was quite interesting in comparison between the two that the Electoral Commission were highlighting. Overall, in rather glim, the returning officer's report was encouraging, wasn't it? Yes, yes. I suppose it's perhaps worth noting that the turnout is quite low, and so the real test would be in a national general election. Which will be interesting because, you know, in a national election, as we all will know, people will be turning up at various polling stations and wanting their vote and then may, on some occasion, not be on their voter's roll. In fact, in rather glim, there was an interesting note and it's part of this. I was canvassed a door where the individual was on the voter's roll, but he was convinced he wasn't. Unfortunately, he was an SNP voter, which was quite concerned, but that goes back to my argument of we need to make sure that we're engaging with people so that they know that they've got that right and they can access that. Can I ask one more about democratic engagement around candidates, is that all right? I mean, so one of the things we talked to the Electoral Commission about, which will no doubt be part of our future discussions and debates on the elections reform bill, was about getting people to stand for election at any level of our democratic representations. One of the concerns that we discussed with them was the level of abuse, intimidation and threat that women candidates experience. Has the Government had any more thought—I will say publicly, if I may convene—that I was disappointed that the Electoral Commission hadn't really got much in the way of an advanced thought about how to counteract this, because I'm deeply worried, and now you will share this concern, that some really good people who have so much to give in public service just will not, in the current environment, feel they can put themselves forward, losing so much talent to the democratic process. Does the Government have any further thoughts on what we can do to take a positive action to encourage people to stand, but also take necessary action to reduce the level of intimidation and threat? It was one of the issues that came up during our consultation on the election reform that we're looking at. It's a point that you brought up in the debate early on when we were talking about the consultation. Interestingly, one of the issues that we also discussed—it's one that you haven't mentioned—was one of the consultation ideas that we had was 16-17-year-old candidates, which you clearly didn't think was a good idea. When we spoke to young people during the consultation and I spoke to young people, they came up with a very similar answer to what you said there, which was that I am politically motivated. I have written a national newspaper article on how my political beliefs are. I was attacked on various social medias by middle-aged men who told me that they knew better than I did. Her request to me was that you would need to get politics sorted out before I would consider it, and I am politically motivated. It is a valid point that there is a level of abuse. I know many female colleagues who have gone on to other careers because they feel that we do our politics the way things have been online. It comes down to how we interact with one another in the chamber. I think that that reflects in society as well, and that's where some of it might come from in certain cases. Social media doesn't help because it almost becomes like a football crowd where one team supports one and another supports the other and there's nothing in the middle. As we all know, in order to get anything done in the political world, we need to meet at one point and agree on something. You have highlighted many of the concerns. We have been looking at it from the consultation and we are going through the detail at the moment. I will be engaging with yourself and some of your colleagues here with that as we go down this process for the new electoral reform bill. There is no doubt that the levels of toxicity I would say less so in Parliament but certainly in social media. Some of the comments that people will post are more than just mildly threatening or disconcerting, particularly for and I think that this is particularly true of women candidates because of the nature of the threats that are made against. As you know, my wife and I are a package in the political world of Paisley. Basically, my wife has had abuse just by being my partner. There has been talk about her disability, the fact that she's a wheelchair user. Unfortunately, that's the world that many of these keyboard warriors actually do. Again, it's not the real world and we need to just make sure that we show leadership and say, you know, this is how we actually do politics. I mean, I'll consider about where the husband and wife aren't a package and that's probably in the majority of politicians who are in this Parliament and other parliaments. I have a colleague because of votes that have been held recently in this Parliament whose wife has been threatened, openly threatened actually because of the way he chose to vote on a particular issue. I wonder whether we shouldn't be reviewing the criminal law in relation to protecting candidates so that people feel that there are at least some deterrent barrier that's in place that might make people think twice about what they say and what they write. Would you have any sympathy to that line of thinking? I think I need to see more detail and we need to discuss it further just to see how we go forward with that. That nicely moves us in to the elections bill, which may well take up much of this committee's time. I know that the minister won't mind me saying that yesterday at the convener's group, where evidence was given, there was expressed very genuine concern about the work levels that certain committees have, particularly Lou with regard to legislative instruments along with other things. As we approach the midway point in this session and having heard your answers in respect to the Electoral Commission and the work that still needs to be done about that, when can we expect the elections bill? Let's start with that one. Tomorrow? As I've already expressed, and I'll sit here on the public record, I want this bill to be seen as the Parliament's bill. It is a Scottish Government bill, but I think that we're talking about the very heart and soul of our democracy and I think that it's got to be seen that it's the Parliament's bill. I will be wanting to speak to yourself, probably Mr Kerr and his role is on this with regards to the Conservative Party and other political parties with regards to how I'm planning and bringing forward when we get to that stage, because I think that it's important that you buy into this at the early stage. Also, if I suggest something, possibly point me, maybe you think I've gone down a rabbit hole in one or two of different items. I want to get to that stage so that when we do have the discussion again, it will be literally about the detail of making the bill better, should that be the case? Delving into that, because that goes to the point of it. Good practice suggests legislation should be in place at least six months before it's first tried and tested in an election. The time period that's required to get a bill of any size through this Parliament, we are aware of and we are getting very close to the point where those two dates will become incompatible. We had this discussion with the Electoral Commission yesterday. Really it's to push into that because there is a huge importance and I think a pressure from both within and out with this place with regard to an election bill. History shows us that rushed election bills cause absolute chaos on the day. We discussed with the Electoral Commission yesterday and we will be within the six months as all the Electoral Management Boards want as well. At this point, just give us another detail, maybe bring Ian in just to add to that. I think on our current timetable and projections we would expect and hope if the Parliament's willing that the bill would be passed by before the end of next year. That would give quite substantial periods for any related secretary of legislation. There would also be in a different process secretary of legislation that we would be doing anyway in relation to tweaks and changes and corrections, so we will be taking that forward in parallel over the course of next year. Actually, just going back to the previous discussion on intimidation, we would hope to include at the moment a provision in relation to candidates and local government elections who are also their own agent because as we do poll there, where their addresses have to be made public, so we are hoping to try and close that by secondary legislation rather than the bill. That would be one of the tandem. Ironically, when we had the discussion of the Electoral Commission yesterday, I had my Minister for Parliamentary Business hat on and I was second stage one, stage two, stage three, Royal Assent, boom, jobs done. He said yes, but secondary legislation, minister. When we went, oh yes, but when we walked it through we were in a safe place to ensure that we have got it in the right timescales. I am glad that there is a level of confidence about that because of the importance of any amendment to electoral law, but does that timetable take into account just simply even the discussion that we have had this morning about the registration of electors? Does it take into account considerations that we have had over the role of AI or are you seeing this elections bill as quite a tight bill that is hinted at from some of the responses in the consultation? I think you have already mentioned 16, 17-year-olds and very strong arguments from both that group but others about it. Has your view of the extent of the bill changed? Is that so that we can get it in hopefully and I am not going to quote you on this other than of course this is in public by the end of next year? Or do you still see the bill achieving what you hoped it would have achieved when we first talked about this some 18 months ago? I still believe that it will achieve what I hoped it would achieve. Still at the same time there has been some interesting things that came from the consultation and I hinted at the 16, 17-year-old which was a shock to me. I think on the whole we should be okay for the timescales to be able to get ourselves to say that it is a workable bill that we should all be happy with. As I have said right from the beginning the members here will be the first to know and I will be in touch with you and ensure that you know there will be no surprises to quote the bute house agreement from yourself as we go forward. I am not sure how I go quoting quite from that. I was going to say can I first express the view that the Scottish Government and that you have echoed today about this being a parliamentary bill in essence using Scottish Government time is very useful and also I know the work that is going on so that we can reach agreement where reaching agreement is the correct thing to do and then engage with in the process others outside who will have a view of that. So can I thank you for that? I was going to turn to freedom of information in particular obviously because of the Scottish information commissioners report progress report which is varied in its comments. Where are you with regard to the various recommendations? I don't know whether you want to talk to them holistically or individually. Probably in general because we have a very good working relationship with the previous information commissioner. We have been special measures for and well all the time I've been here. It happened before I was here though. As I just said for the record we are now at 97% since June and returns and 60% increase in the level of requests that we are getting. The relationship with the previous information commissioner was such that he had a job to do. We weren't doing as well as we should have. We took that on board and we've got to the stage where there had to be a change of culture within the Scottish Government as an organisation to see that as part of the day job and part of the job, not just something that you do in addition to the work. So that's not easy as you'll understand in any organisation to try and get that kind of culture changed here but we've got to a stage where we've managed to turn that around. I think now that with the new information commissioner I had a meeting with him a number of weeks ago and he explained how he was quite impressed at how the Government had turned things around with the FOI and it's one of the things that if I'm brutally honest with the committee when I came in as minister two and a half years ago that I was concerned about because it was probably in my whole portfolio one of the weaker aspects of where we were at. And I think in this modern world it's one of the most important things because open government is part of my remit as well and there's nothing more open than access to information like through the freedom of information. So I think on the whole we've got ourselves to a place where as an organisation we're dealing with it a lot better and I just see this continuing down this way and making sure. As we move forward do we look at proactive publication for some things. I would like to get to that place where we can do that whereas if someone does do an FOI and there's something available I can say look at page 35 on the website you will find your answer there. We published this in June last year or something like that. The concern with that is then I get accuser data dumping because there might be too much so I'm trying to find that balance but that's a place where we would like to bring in jills if you want to add anything to that. The improvement plan which follows the commissioner's report is in development at the moment and will be published before the end of the year which was our deadline and it will pick up key points from the report itself. We all have obviously been in an ongoing improvement environment and the minister's referred to our FOI and the IR request response rate which is sitting at an average of about 97 per cent and has been for the last few months now. Over this year we have made some key changes so leadership has been really important and Mr Adam has been very strong on that. Our permanent secretary has also been very strong in reinforcing with civil servants that FOI is not an added extra it's part of the civil service craft. That's very powerful and good to hear and I think you know when you look at FOI discussions around the world that proactive publication is where they all point to for the very good reason that if the information is out there hopefully whoever is seeking the answer can get it without doing it. I mean one of the recommendations and we've seen this in let me just say hinted at and other discussions that have happened in the chamber is with regard to the records management and the report is still if not scathing still very critical of where you've got to on that and as you say here we are two and a half years down this road are we going to see an improvement in that or have we hit either a hardware problem a process problem or an attitudinal problem to case management? I think with the case management side it's more a software problem with the case management system that we use and I know that it's on-going works to look at how we address that and deal with that as well. I'll bring in Jill just to add some more detail on that side of things. Certainly the case management system which we use for FOIs is something which as the minister is saying that we're actively looking at evolving. More generally on records management it's not my key area but I know that a lot of work has been going in behind the scenes. I don't have any key statistics but possibly we could get back to you and fill you in on that but I know that generally the move towards getting our data into platforms and places where it can be easily searched and structured in a very more accessible fashion that that is definitely making progress so there is a sense there of of records management. I mean it's interesting sorry I didn't mean to cut the question, it's very rude. So one of the areas that sorry the answer that the minister gave was with regard to a software problem. One of the areas that was picked up by the commissioners in respect to recording particularly special advisers advice so actually doing that is simply a from now on it will be recorded rather than a hardware problem of recording it and if that's the case when are we going to see that? We already train case handlers to save certain documentation into the case file. Case file is an ERDM which is our corporate record system and we do some audits on that so that's just part of the general training we all get as civil servants about what we should be saving and does that include recording the special advisers advice and which special adviser gave it? What we get would be perhaps an email which confirms that it has you know has their comments on it and that email should be saved in the case in the case file and there is a checklist that they can follow in order to do that. But it is right to say that the report highlights a lack of that actually happening in the reports so what I'm saying is we're working with the special advisers team as well on the nature of how some of those communications are worded. Be brutally honest I've had conversations with special advisers in particular because again it's been in numerous reports the fact of special advisers being part of the problem with the progress but to be fair to them as well when you don't often hear this from people in general about special advisers there was a point where a lot of FOIs were coming in to the process and there was no leadership in government actually dealing with it at that stage and it would float about the organisation for a while until it appeared on someone's desk where there was 24 hours to go. That's changed because you've got your case handlers who are constantly following up the information something as simple as that's your FOI for your directorate you need to get that done and we've managed to keep that moving on as well. Special advisers probably don't get near as many FOIs as they did previously because of some of the things that have been brought up in the report because it's dealt with at a government level within the actual directorates and portfolios themselves so things have moved on we have taken on board many of the bits of advice and it comes back to me again you know my conversations with the information commissioner as to try and discuss when do we come out of special measures and when do we move forward with this because we have created a system that is getting better and as time goes on as I said the information commissioner at a recent meeting did say he thought the government was an example of an organisation that had struggled with FOI but had turned it around. Before the end of this year we'll see the publication of your response in essence to the report which will be most welcome and that will obviously contain very specific responses to the recommendations so would it be fair for this committee to expect a date after which given that it seems to be an individual training process point with regard to recording these decisions that it will happen rather than the need for some additional hardware or something else that obviously would have to go through purchase that becomes a bit more problematic so I'll probably have to get back to you in that one as well well maybe we'll return after the publication of your response on that Stephen did you have a short contribution I had a very short follow-up on that and because they mentioned the word culture I've always been very interested in organisational culture so there does seem to be some kind of culture change happening within the ministers and the spads as well as within the civil service is that a fair comment no that's a fair comment it's interesting that if you look at the Scottish Information Commissioners report he basically says it's a game of two halves up to the spring of this year not a very good record tall but I think you used the word abysmal and then from the spring onwards now there was a change of government leadership in the spring of this year and I note with interest that Fiona Hislop said to the Public Audit Committee widely reported that official record keeping and I presume she means involving ministers and spads and others has improved compared with when she was lasting government under the previous First Minister what exactly has changed well I don't like to say it's all about me but oh could be though we shouldn't shy away from giving credit if that's the case no it's basically no it's the change of leadership's irrelevant to the situation when it was an ongoing programme of trying to get improvement and move things forward there was a conversation that I as Jill's already said it came from political leadership came from myself the civil service came from the ggp itself and I had a conversation with him earlier this year where I said I wasn't happy with the way things were it was a problem we couldn't continue like this and things had to change so you and the permanent secretary basically right and then we had that conversation and the permanent secretary to his credit took it on board from a very senior level in government actually led by example and encouraged everyone in every department to say this is part of your role this is how you move forward and I think that's more an example of just cutting through all the nonsense and getting things working because as you know and I know in any organisation to get that kind of cultural change you need to get away from the fluff around the edges and just deal with the issue that's in front of you and not to blow more on trumpet but I think it was more because I just took that direct approach yeah I mean I completely agree with you convener I do agree with the minister cultural change happens because of leadership it takes leadership and you know the new permanent secretary because I think he's been in place roughly from just about the time when the improvements have begun to become apparent although a long way to go we've all acknowledged we acknowledged some improvement but there's a long way to go and this perhaps more strictly conforming adherence to the need for proper records to be kept in government my concern about freedom of information if I may share this and ask the minister to comment is that when record keeping becomes a core function of the civil service and minister seeing that there is appropriate record kept very topical issue will not engage with any of those topical issues that there is a danger I've just been reminded not to engage with any of the issues but there is a danger and I don't know whether you share this or not that some information that ought to be recorded in the form of of a documented record no longer is recorded because it's presented in a different way it isn't captured by the civil service requirement to record the information does that make sense I'm very convoluted but I'm just concerned that some things will no longer be there because foi and enhanced record keeping means some of those conversations just disappear into the ether on the whole haven't some of the and I didn't mention deleted what's that but some of the things that have been said over the past couple of weeks with regards that seems strange to me because in my time within government basically every decision has been made and come through the scott system through my laptop my government can a laptop and even down to if I have a meeting with Jill and I say you've given me three options I'm taking option B then Jill will then send me an email that says minister at our meeting of whoever you we had this discussion and you decided to go for option B is that still your thoughts you know and so to me that's just a very simplistic way of saying you know in generally and Mr McKeill backed me up and this is a former government minister it ain't going to happen if it's known that scott system you know nothing is going to get done I think it's the advice it's the advice as this was suggested I think the convener was going in this direction as well the advice that's being given spads were specifically mentioned but you know that general discussion about how you arrive at the three options that also should be a matter of ministerial record that tends to be within the process as well whether that be because obviously in the old days we still call it a ministerial box because we used to go about a box full of paper it's now an inbox and effectively all that information will be captured digitally within the system as well right and as I've said you know the conversation will be you know the even even when down to the meetings that we've had that will be the decisions where the discussion was and that will be captured within the system so we're on a journey and it's getting better it's getting better and as I always say I like to think I like to if something's broken I want to fix it and your homework will be marked later indeed by the Scottish Information Association and others thank you thank you Steve now just for the purposes of simple clarity I was merely echoing recommendation three which requires both the name but also the rationale behind the decision to be recorded if I can turn to uh sorry Evan was the yeah I was just going to talk about the voice a bit first when you go yep that's fine so section five of the freedom of information Scotland Act 2001 gives you the power to add bodies for the purposes of freedom of information you produce a report and the report this year clearly stated that there'd be no new designations however during that period of time Scott rail trains and the Caledonian sleeper service were brought within it for the purposes of getting access to information and I was just wondering why you didn't avail yourself of the ability under the act just to announce them as part of the system going forward I have said convener that part of as we go forward I'm looking at the section five powers to give us a possibility to look at other organizations that we can bring into the fold all I can say at this stage is it's a work in progress with some of that as well and again as soon as I do have further detail I'll get back to yourself and this committee because there are a number of issues and a number of organizations that we're talking to at the moment I push the point because obviously the regulation of legal services Scotland bill is on its way through a journey and whether it's still your intention to use that as the potential vehicle for this well with section five you don't need to do any primary legislation the considerations that that you're having or will it be out with that bill and will be somewhere else possibly somewhere else possibly somewhere else nope that that's that's helpful I'm going to unleash Stephen again but with a cursory point at the time yes are we going to go sorry no my apologies I've not come to you yes sorry yeah my apologies I've thank thanks convener um yeah a couple of points I wanted to pick up on one was in your response to the port from the information commissioner you said that you accept the recommendations in principle so I don't want to get too geeky on the semantics we just want to explore what that means and whether the when you do send the response back it'll be specific details about any parts of the recommendations or not except just to say I agree with principle was the fact that we want to kind of move forward but accept that there's issues that we need to sort out and we need to fix and I'm willing to do that with the great respect my smickey I think you'll look too much into the language thank you for that that was my committee member we will we will we will see the extent of it when the report's published before before the end of this year the clarification from the minister is very welcome the other point I was going to ask a bit about was cost aspects of foi now I can't recall the number and we've had a briefing on this but it runs in I think many many tens of thousands across the the public sector on an annual basis and I think that's possibly increasing and clearly that carries a cost with it so the question was is there any sense of how much of the Scottish government's total cost which is someone excess of 700 million per year um you you would say is is a consequence of compliance to foi and then what does that look like across the broader public sector as a whole is there any work or any viewer any assessment of what those numbers might look like I think obviously when you're in financial times that we are in the moment every every penny is a prisoner everybody's looking for everything but in my role I had this conversation with the Jackson Carlaw's committee as well when they brought up the idea of commissioners you know I think it was Fergo Schoon wanted to have a perch on commissioners and I said well hardly beat from me to say I said because you know if I came along and said well do we really need the information commissioner you would quite rightly tell me to go and get knotted on the whole idea you know so I think there's always a balance to be had and foi is an important part of our democratic process you know so when we start talking about the costs and the facts and figures with regards to it then we start kind of putting ourselves in a difficult place but there is offers obviously as you're aware there's a situation that if foi is so costly there's a cut off point sometimes we maybe don't explain that to better we maybe could explain that we would better when we give people the foi's back because sometimes when they just get that there but you know I think it's not for me to say whether in my role whether it's the kind of right thing or the wrong thing or the costs are too much because my role is to defend effectively parliamentary business and freedom of information in any forms of open government I'll bring in Gill if she's got anything else to add on that herself we did some years ago have a calculation which attempted to give a cost to the Scottish government for foi activity we stopped using it because I think it was it was complicated enough but it was so quite the simplistic it's very very hard to quantify in reality we're gathering information from a number of people there's inputs from all over it would have to be quite a detailed calculation in order to do it and as the minister says it it then also reflects on the wider rights of the citizen to ask the question and get the information yeah and I don't know if you're reading too much into this but the him I think in the interest of transparent it died on it if in a process to do with transparency we would we took the decision not to have transfers and the cost so I think and I think you know I can understand what you're saying but I like understanding what an approximate assessment the number is it doesn't necessarily lead on to saying there's too much of it what it could lead on to is saying we need to have more efficient processes be that proactive release be it automation of data release through that that kind of approach which then I take that on board and we'll take it on board and we'll have a look and we'll see what we can come back with thank you very much thank you thank you Stephen yeah so um this is a subject I know that you will know that I have a passion about and that is making reform improvements to the way that our Parliament works in order to benefit the people of Scotland so recently we've had the gender sensitivity or sensitive audit and there are some recommendations that flow from that I think I'd be interested to hear you speak about your response to that report and I think more broadly it would be good to hear what your appetite as the minister speaking for the government of course what your appetite is for us to look at how we make Parliament more effective in its functions it's funny because it's one of the disagreements you and I have had for two and a half years is how we make Parliament yeah and I think because I'd recognise how big a part the SNP must play in making that reform happen because it has to can't be partisan it has to be no I get that and with regard to the gender sensitive audit I really think we do need to embrace it and go forward with it as a Parliament as a whole your convener will pull me up from time to time when we have possibly changed committee structure and we may have a committee I think I think the jackson carlaws committee the public participator petitions it's system participation it's actually got to it's all male if I remember correctly it's he's now and and but it's an ongoing challenge because I've often had the and I make this point at bureau and with the presiding officer is the fact that yes because I have in my group a majority of women it doesn't necessarily mean that they all want to go on specific committees they may have interests and things that they want to do and just to put them in a committee just because they're female is take them away from what they actually want to do but I'm also aware that I have a responsibility for the Parliament and its committees to reflect Scotland in itself so you know it's one of these ones that we're going to have to kind of move on with my argument back to yourself and other political parties would be would be we need to get to stage where like we create a mechanism within the SNP to ensure that we ended up with a majority of SNP female MSPs and I think other parties need to look at that as well because if we are going to be serious about being reflective and that doesn't just include male female it also means disability race as well you know we need to look at other ways of being able to kind of make sure that we are reflective of the people of Scotland and move away from pale middle-aged men like you and I Mr Kerr. I'm still grateful that you would think of me as middle-aged. I don't think anyone's going to disagree with what you just said I mean all the political parties in Scotland that are serious about engaging with the people of Scotland and the priorities of the people of Scotland have got to look like the people of Scotland so I completely agree with that and certainly the Scottish Conservatives have taken some very positive decisions in that direction and no other parties have as well. What about the broader issue though I mean there are there are by the way I also agree with your comments about not shoehorning people on the basis of their sex into specific committees I think there is a there is a natural dimension this as well people will have passions and interests that they'll want to pursue and while people will curtail those in order to be part of the team it's important that they also have opportunities to express themselves and that's why they probably came into public life on the issue though of parliamentary reform in general so there's lots of discussion we have lots of discussions about how we could make very small adjustments to how we do things in this parliament that would create all kinds of additional freedoms for members in terms of expression in the chamber opportunity to engage further with ministers in terms of scrutiny and I know you're a big advocate of ministerial scrutiny what's your appetite what's the appetite of the government to come together with members across all parties so that we can agree that some of these adjustments can be implemented as always it's for the parliament to decide how the parliament goes forward but as a mayor major player within that parliament the government I'm as always happy to listen to other ideas that others have to try and find a sensible way forward to deal with the challenges we've got in front of us I might not necessarily agree with every idea that everyone comes up with but on the whole I'll give it a we'll have a good chat and we'll kick it down the road quite a bit to see how we can actually get that sorted but you would personally you personally and I recognize you're also representing a significant bloc of MSPs you would personally be interested in ideas that would enhance our debate that would allow for a little bit more topicality in the way that portfolio questions for example are conducted you would be interested in in seeing how that could be done the parliament has always evolved in the time I've been here topical questions didn't exist when I was first elected in 2011 we have more portfolio questions than what we had when I first was elected as well the parliament sits Tuesday Wednesday Thursday when I first came here it was Wednesday Thursday you know so you know the parliament has constantly evolved during that period and yet I think that's to be encouraged do you have so I welcome that comment personally because of my particular interest in this do you have ideas about how we might establish outside of the existing parliamentary processes which can be a bit laborious at times in terms of how long it takes aren't any ideas about how we can establish more channels between our parties in order outside of all of that that might be able to progress this discussion so we can find that common ground which definitely exists as always it's a case of personalities and individuals talking to each other and just having that conversation as a start starting point you and I have done it numerous occasions the convener and I have done it numerous occasions I haven't approached me about something not so long ago as well you know I feel I generally feel I am a I'm someone that will be able to kind of you can talk to an approach and I'm quite happy to encourage that as a starting point right so that we can then kind of develop ideas as I say you and I may find out we disagree on some of the points but that we will find common ground as always I think there's an amazing amount of common ground between members of the part of parliament on how small changes can bring about quite dramatic improvements in how we operate one last point but as always can I succinct contributions can I just caveat that by saying that as always it's the parliament has made the decision we are a major part of that but that's why I'm saying we all need to talk to each other I'm very conscious of time and I think one example that is worth putting on the record is the minister for veterans who regularly holds meetings with any members to raise matters because there are sometimes challenges for that item to make it into the chamber it doesn't mean that the work is not happening and there are ways around that I am slightly conscious of time there's two things that I want to mention so I will exercise a certain level of leniency for a few more seconds Stephen well take the seconds just to mention one particular idea that perhaps is more major than some of the other ideas I'm alluding to which is the idea of having conveners committee conveners elected by parliament and we've raised this before have you any current thoughts on that everyone is talking about how we can enhance the power of committees how we can make them even more independent and how we can get that level of scrutiny and inquiry that we all know Scotland's parliament needs your thoughts well Stephen you have just won official bingo because elected conveners is one of the ones who said we've got a chance but basically as always it's for the parliament and to decide on that issue as well and I will if they decide to go down that route I the government will engage obviously as one of the major players with it but it's for parliament to make that decision SMP doesn't have a particular position on that it's entirely up to the members with regards to with regards to how we go forward I don't think there's any canada there's no policy within the SMP as to how we go forward with that issue for you vote and the minister is here for the goth Scottish government processes before it gets to a free vote the chief whip would probably never forgive a former chief whip for making a suggestion of that I think it's very helpful to have heard from the minister for partnerships for the Scottish government that they are happy to discuss these matters rather than other roles that might happen I am conscious of time I was going to discuss the reconsideration of the NCRC which I know is coming forward but I think it's more appropriate that we leave that until after the event which will hopefully happen before the end of this year and then we may be able to return to that to analyse the processes it went through and what challenges or indeed useful months. Just doing that if you indulge me convener one of the things is I can I things this is the first time we've done it and I can honestly say it probably hasn't been as satisfying for everyone as as it's progressed and I think we genuinely do need to have that conversation that you discussed afterwards because I think there are things we could probably look at going forward. I think that's very helpful and it is both fortunate and unfortunate that the first experience that this parliament has of it is in respect of a bill that affects our younger generations and actually I think they have borne the brunt of a period of time and I'm welcome for the offer to to reconsider review and look into it and we will certainly take the minister up on that so can I thank both you minister and your officials for attending today I have now received an apology from Annie Wells which I'd like to put on the record that she was unable to attend today for reasons and I absolutely accept those and I will now move this meeting into private