 I'm going to make the case for innovation and impact are relative and small organisations in their own way can have as much proportionate impact as those that have big data sets, huge amounts of data. There are 22 people in my office including me. We don't even have Wi-Fi. We have, because we're in an old building and it will be disproportionately expensive to put it in to make it work through all those beautiful brick walls and things. We have a very basic IT infrastructure. We have no in-house IT expertise and we outsource our web provision, our systems. We are fairly typical of many small public authorities in Scotland. But we are taking a different approach to our data and we believe that we have already made significant changes in terms of our own business. So I'm just going to give you some practical examples of what we've done and why we did it and they pick up on many of the themes that we've already heard. So if I look initially at what I've grouped as management and diagnostic, this is about improving our own performance. How are we doing? What's causing the blockages in our processes and systems? How much effort do we actually put into collecting data that has absolutely no use or benefit to us? What we found was we started from some fairly basic things like good old management setting key performance indicators and then realised we couldn't actually measure those key performance indicators because we weren't collecting the right data so we had to make some system changes and then we realised that actually those key performance indicators only took us so far. And we started measuring and collecting data about different aspects of our business and what we realised is that resources we were throwing at one place actually were the wrong resources because that's not where the blockages occurred. And it was the data that showed us that and it was very simple data, it was not complex but we started from the perspective of thinking about what and why are we recording things. Now we also as part of our statutory duties monitor performance on freedom of information, we can go into public authorities in Scotland and we can assess them and we can audit them. And when I became commissioner we over the years have something between 400 and 800 appeals a year, that's where somebody's unhappy with the disclosure or otherwise from a public body and they come to us. And we were looking at some particular things, we had processes in place that were all about assessment and we had a programme of assessment, it was a very grand programme, we did a whole 11 authorities a year and it was two officers that is two very valuable, highly skilled individuals could manage 11 authorities a year. There are over 10,000 in Scotland if you include every GP and pharmacy and there are well over 250 that are actually just named, everybody from Scottish government, down to individual universities. So you have to question the impact of 11 assessments a year because we weren't really finding a lot with them and what this made me think about was why were we assessing those particular bodies and we were using our data. We have had X number of appeals about that body over the last year and we've found against them in 19 out of 24 times therefore there's an underlying issue. I like numbers and I didn't like that approach and I asked a very simple question but how many FOI requests are there a year? I don't know, we're not allowed to count that because we look at appeals and there's no way you'll ever find that out. So one of my first tasks was we put in place a system very very simple, every public body in Scotland, every quarter uploads a data set of how many requests they've had, how many reviews they've had, what sort of exemptions. And if I tell you that in 1516 authorities recorded over 68,000 information requests and 0.79% of them ended up as an appeal, that puts in perspective our 11 assessments based on what we found in appeals was completely hitting the wrong things. And as a result of that basic statistic we have changed our entire strategy on assessment, on the support we give public bodies and on our approach to monitoring FOI. We did away with assessments altogether, we've put the resource into producing self-assessment tools on particular areas of practice that authorities can use and we can impose if we need to. We have completely done away with the concept of auditing, it's not an efficient use of time. Our rationale is help authorities get it right first time, if they get it right first time then citizens will have the information that they're entitled to including data as soon as they need it, not potentially 18 months down the line. So that was one example. Another example of how we have changed our approach as a result of this is in relation to publication, there is a duty to publish proactively. And this is the area where I think FOI law needs to turn itself on its head. It should not be about right to ask, it should be about right to know and the right to ask is a backstop. So this is informing our thinking about how access to information laws might change. Now on top of all this I want to lead by example in terms of open data and what have you and it's a journey for us. There is a hugely complicated legislative framework for access to information when you look at FOI, DPA, reuse regulations, inspire regulations, environmental information regulations and then you look at open data which is not statutory but I sometimes wonder whether it might help to be but there you go. And these are the things that we have learned in our journey of trying to be both compliant and good with our data. It's hard to know who to talk to and what to ask if you don't know the language as a decision maker. There's some help needed there. It's hard to know which is the right data because a lot of leaders I say that I come across, they're frightened as soon as they hear the word data. They think it's technical and it's not about technology, it's about business and about understanding. I'd say if you're going to give people skill sets, teach leaders of organisations agile approaches to development and make sure procurement laws match them because it's hugely difficult to know how to get the expertise in if you are a small organisation. And if you can find academic partners to work with you on what seem to be very, very, very simple things, I think there's benefit to be gained for both. Design from the starting point of what you want out, most organisations are not starting with a blank sheet and that's very difficult, particularly in public sector where budgets are relatively inflexible. And if I've learned nothing, it's stop. Don't do any more of that. Start from this point on doing the other thing. Don't keep trying to catch up with your old stuff because you never will. You will constantly try and catch up. But mostly I would say it's about understanding the value to society and the public sector as a whole as a leader. Look beyond your own borders because the benefits I think we are getting out of our approach are entirely derived from the co-operation of public authorities giving me their FOI data without any quibbles or without any argument and we're working our way through it together. The other final thing I would say is we want data to be reliable and I know that the statistics we collect are not 100% perfect but they do over time show a journey and they do over time start improving simply because when one authority benchmarks themselves against another it makes people question how they've recorded their own data to start with. So that's me. Thank you.