 The next item of business is a debate on motion 12861, the name of Rhoda Grant, on a review of government, FOI handling and record keeping, can ask those members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak buttons now. I call on Rhoda Grant to speak to and move the motion. Eight minutes please, Ms Grant. The intervention report from the Scottish Information Commissioner exposes the utter contempt in which this SNP Government holds the freedom of information law. In publishing the stunning report, the Scottish Information Commissioner has done the principle of openness and transparency a great service, and I truly hope that it is a wake-up call for the Scottish Government. FOI legislation was enacted to make government more transparent and to improve scrutiny, yet this Government has done the opposite. They refuse to be held to account and they refuse to be scrutinised. These particularly written questions in this Parliament get a poor and evasive answer, so members are forced to use FOI legislation and get the answers that should have been provided with in the Parliament. The Scottish Government seeks to block this as well. The single-eyed journalists, MSPs and their researchers for special treatment are subject to a greater scrutiny and sign-off, but they are likely to get answers and those that they get take longer to receive. The report states that, by creating and applying a process based on request or type rather than the nature of the request, not only is the spirit of FOI legislation offended, but trust between those groups mentioned in the policy and the Scottish Government may also be damaged. This is not just important for those of us in the political bubble, it is important to hold the Government to account and it is important to understand how and why decisions are made and who influences why they are made. The meetings that Government ministers have taken part in are matters of public interest and national importance, therefore we are calling for an independent review on how Government handles FOIs and their overall record keeping, another area that they have fallen short. For example, we have a transport minister meeting with the chief executives of both stagecoach and the first group, with no minutes taken nor any agenda prepared. We have a First Minister alongside her finance secretary, her education secretary, her economy secretary, inviting a host of business figures to dinner at Bute house, including SNP donor Brian Souter, again with no minutes or agenda. It is outrageous that Scottish Government ministers think that they can have such covert meetings and ride roughshod over FOI legislation and, indeed, the law. That means that even the information commissioner is unable to track the Government's behaviour and decision-making process. The report states that, where data is absent or unclear, it was excluded from our analysis. Therefore, this report is only based on the findings from Government's better record keeping. We can only guess what is being covered up by their worst. Whether by intent or negligence, poor record keeping of the very process that was enshrined in law to make Government more transparent makes it less so and that is extremely disappointing. The information commissioner's report stated that it could not be clear what role special advisers had with regard to FOI. Their involvement varied between department. He stated that there was little guidance on their role and whether it impacted on responses given. We all know that special advisers have a role in helping Government in a more political role, but that should not allow them to evade the law or, indeed, the spirit of FOI legislation. If the information that is requested is available and is not subject to any legal exclusion, then it must be provided. That is the letter and the spirit of FOI legislation and it must be adhered to. It is simply wrong that a Government that should be leading the way and providing a good example has behaved in this way and it must stop now. Stuart Stevenson, I speak as someone who says to be a minister six years ago and who, for three years after being a minister, continued to be asked for confirmation about FOI responses. Who in Government should be the person who contacts me to ensure that the FOI responses that are being made and are being checked with someone no longer in Government some years after it? Who should do that? Rhoda Grant. It surely is for the minister to ensure that the answer that he is giving to FOI requests is the right answer, because ultimately it is the Government that is responsible. If you need to depend on a special adviser to help you to hide information, then that is not good for governance and not good for transparency. If the question that is being asked is to disclose information that is embarrassing to Government, then it is their job to answer that question but also to write the wrong that was uncovered, not to seek to hide it. It is not only underhand and evasive, it is illegal. If poor record keeping is being used to disguise that, that is even worse. It also begs the question whether the additional level of scrutiny is what delays answers to journalists, MSPs and staff. Or is there a culture where information to those people is deliberately delayed in order to kill a story or indeed a line of inquiry? The report talks about the lack of training for staff dealing with FOI requests and there appears to be no formal training at all. Surely that is untenable. Those staff need to be trained in their legal obligation of transparency and surely they must also be trained on how to provide that information in a way that is accessible. The Government has in excess of 1,000 people involved in FOI work but still has no formal training is unbelievable, therefore we strongly suggest that that is put right as soon as possible. All those problems stack up to create a pretty damning report. There is little that is good in that report. The only thing that stands out is that there has been an improvement. However, that improvement only happened after the information commissioner stepped in and it does not go far enough. Furthermore, if that is what improvement looks like, we can only imagine how bad it was previously. That catalogue of errors reflects very poorly on the Government. We expected the report to raise some failings in the system but reading it shows that there were failings after failings after failings. Those failings may not always have been done with intent but carelessness is hardly an excuse when it prevents proper Governmental scrutiny by opposition parties, backbenchers and the press. The Government amendment removes from our motion the concerns expressed by the information commissioner's report. That is disappointing because it shows the lack of understanding of the seriousness of those findings. It also talks of consulting on extending FOI to companies providing services on behalf of the public sector. We would support the extension of FOI to those organisations. However, they have to go further than consult. They have to commit to legislate on the outcome of that consultation. They also have to put their own house in order so that we can have confidence in the system and indeed its extension to non-governmental service providers. We need a new approach to FOI. We need one that we can be confident of, one that can withstand independent scrutiny and, most importantly, one that adheres to the letter and the spirit of the law. Thank you. If you want your motion voted on, you better move it. Can I call on Jo Fitzpatrick now to speak to and move amendment 12861.2, please? Thank you, Presiding Officer. In moving the amendment in my name, I thank Rhoda Grant for giving us the opportunity to further debate the Scottish Information Commissioner's intervention report. This debate also allows me to set out the improvements that are being put in place to ensure that our processes and performance meet the highest standards that are required and expected of us. This Parliament can be rightly proud of the Freedom of Information Scotland Act 2002. The legislation is rigorous and is well regarded internationally, a position that we have sought to maintain with incremental changes to the legislation. For example, the 2013 amendment act paved the way for lifespans of key exemptions to be reduced from 30 to 15 years. The act has also been extended to bring within scope numerous bodies, including arms-length trusts, providers of secure accommodation for children and young people and private prison contractors. The Scottish Government takes our FOI commitment seriously, and the Scottish Information Commissioner's intervention report that was published last week was a serious assessment of our FOI building processes. I am pleased that the report identifies examples of good practice, but it also highlights areas where improvement in processes is needed. As I informed members last week, the Scottish Government has accepted the recommendations in the report and will develop an action plan by 13 September this year. In turning to today's motion and its call for an independent review of FOI handling, I hope that no member would doubt the independence of the Scottish Information Commissioner and his staff. Indeed, in responding to calls last year for an independent inquiry into Scottish Government request handling, the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointment Committee agreed that the Information Commissioner might be an appropriate person to undertake such an inquiry. I am therefore slightly surprised that today's motion appears to call for another independent review of FOI handling. Perhaps the Labour Party is unconvinced of the commissioner's independence. Neil Findlay, before he moves on, I wonder if the minister could tell us how many times his Government has broken the law in relation to FOI. Andy Wightman raised the conclusion that was made that suggested that the Government broke the law was not a conclusion that the report makes. The commissioner's inquiry was a level 3 intervention under section 43.1 and 43 of FOISA, which relate to best practice. It is my intention and my determination that the Scottish Government will become an exemplar in best practice. That report will help us to achieve that aim. As reflected in the Labour motion, the commissioner's report highlights a number of areas in which action is required, including around clearance, training, case handling and records management. The report is thorough and is being considered in detail by officials. However, as I notified members last week, we have revised guidance on our clearance processes with immediate effect, so some of the language that Rhoda Grant used was saying that this is what we do, this is what we did, and I have signed off new guidance that changes our processes around those matters. That directly addresses recommendation 3 of the report in respect of the treatment of requests based on the class of the requester rather than on the sensitivity of the information sought. A revised guidance, which, as with all our guidance, is in the public domain, makes clear that consideration should be based on the information that is requested rather than on the identity of the requester. In addition, and addressing issues raised in recommendation 4 and 6, we anticipate that the introduction of a new tracker system and the updating of the Scottish Government's electronic records management system should significantly improve request monitoring and record keeping. I confirm again that the agreed action plan will be published, and I am sure that the Scottish Information Commissioner will make public any report into the Scottish Government's implementation of the action plan. Therefore, we will support the Conservative Party's amendment tonight. The commissioner also noted concerns about the case file and record keeping of case handlers. We will address the commissioner's concerns about record keeping in developing our action plan. A vast amount of information is, of course, proactively published by the Scottish Government on its website. That includes Government spend data and a range of ministerial information. I am pleased to announce that, from July, that will include ministerial travel and subsistence expenses. My amendment confirms that the Scottish Government accepts the commissioner's recommendation in full and will develop an action plan by the September deadline. The amendment also acknowledges that improvements are still required on response times in terms of journalist requests. As set out in the commissioner's report in 2017-18, the average response time for media requests was 19 days compared to 17 days, and we are going to fix that. As well as the 2013 amendment act, the Scottish Government sought to ensure that our FOI legislation remains fit for purpose by bringing forward two orders extending coverage of the act. We have also consulted on a draft order extending coverage of FOISA to registered social landlords. The terms of that order are being finalised. However, against the backdrop of ever-changing public service delivery landscape, where services traditionally provided by public authorities are now being provided by the third sector or private contractors and conscious, there are increasing demands to look again at the scope of coverage of the legislation. In particular, I wish to credit the Liberal Democrats for keeping this issue of coverage very much on the radar. We will therefore develop proposals for consulting on further extension of coverage of the Freedom of Information Scotland act, for example to companies covering services on behalf of the public sector. Our proposals will reflect changes in the delivery of public services and help to ensure that FOISA remains fully effective in keeping those responses responsible for delivering public services to your account. I urge members to support the amendment. We are very short for time. There is no time in hand. I now call on Edward Mountain to speak to and move amendment 12861.1. Five minutes, please. It was Tony Blair, the architect behind the Freedom of Information, who later said of his creation, freedom of information, three harmless words. I look at those words as I write them and I feel like shaking my head till it drops off my shoulders. You idiot, you naive, foolish, irresponsible, nincompoop. The fine minister then went on to say, where was Sir Humphrey when I needed him? I am no supporter of Tony Blair nor indeed Sir Humphrey and I firmly believe that the Freedom of Information Act strengthens our democracy and is intrinsic to holding the Government of the day to account. The Scottish Government might not like that but that is democracy. That is why I would like to move the amendment in my name, which calls on the Scottish Information Commissioner to publish an annual report into the Scottish Government's performance in handling FOI requests. I would like to encourage all members to support my amendment, which seeks to strengthen scrutiny and ensures that the Scottish Government is made accountable for their performance every year. Why do we need this? Sorry, Mr Wightman. Andy Wightman. I wonder whether the amendment talks about making public the report on the Government's implementation plan of the action plan when approved annually. The commissioner has committed to publish the action plan that is provided, but I am not aware that he is committed to publishing any annual implementation plan. Could the member clarify that? Sorry, I am sorry. It is not my understanding that the commissioner has agreed to publish it annually, and that is the point that I would like to see, is that it is published annually so that we can see how the Government is performing. This investigation that we have been talking about by the Information Commissioner came about because of a motion that I lodged last year that condemned the Government's performance on handling FOIs and called for the independent inquiry, a motion that led to the Government that we should never forget condemning themselves. The resulting report, to me, is a damning indictment and shows the true scale of the issue, a Government trying to cover its tracks and bury bad news. If it is not for the porpocy of information in case files, then it is the unwarranted interference from special advisers. I, for one, am deeply uncomfortable with the way special advisers are used by this Government, having experienced their reprehensible behaviour during the forestry bill. In his report, the Scottish Information Commissioner rightly questions why SPADs were checking FOI responses before they were released. The SPADs say that we can advise but we cannot instruct, but how many are sticking to that code? To me, the shadowy fingers of SPADs mark many FOI requests. One example in the report showed a SPAD asking a case handler and I quote, grateful if you could reconsider the information that you proposed to release. If you said words to those who affect me in this chamber, I would take it as an instruction, so would most people, and the SPAD knew exactly what they were doing if they were giving an instruction. Let's be clear. I will indeed take an intervention. Stuart Stevenson, is that an instruction that the provider of information looks further to ensure that there is additional information that is not provided or is it in some other term? I think that the very fact that the way that it is phrased gives a very clear indication of what is being achieved. It did not ask for more information. It asked for what information was being released and whether it was right. To me, it appears to me that the Government's guidance on handling FOIs is lacking and special advisers are constantly overstepping the mark and undermining the Freedom of Information Acts. My colleagues sitting beside me and the journalists who are watching this will all have examples of freedom of information requests being delayed or ignored. There is clear evidence that this Government treats FOI requests from MSPs and journalists differently, which goes against the African Blind Principle of FOI laws. When it comes to FOIs, we should all be treated the same. This Scottish Government is based on secrecy and control. MSPs and journalists know that getting information from the Government is like drawing blood from a stone. To get the right answer, you have to ask the right questions and you probably have to ask a sequence of them to get to the bottom of the information that you reasonably requested in the first place. To me, that is deeply disingenuous. We are forced to play a cynical game just to get information that should be in the public domain. Democracy is not a game. Democracy requires Governments to be open, transparent and accountable. For me, it is time that this Scottish Government was democratic. There is no time in hand, so strict timings. I welcome the debate and endorse everything in the Labour motion. It seems unkind to be here again, giving the Government another kicking, but hopefully the debate that was engendered by the concerns of journalists over a year ago will reinforce the importance of freedom of information. The intervention report makes sober reading, and I commend him and his staff for a comprehensive piece of work. Beyond the specific case being investigated, it shines a very useful light on Scotland's freedom of information regime more generally. Just in response to Neil Findlay's intervention of earlier, I would quote in paragraph 140 from the commissioner, that there is nothing in FUI law or the section 60 code of practice that permits authorities to treat certain groups of requesters less preferentially than others. I remind the Government that it can only do what is permitted by law. Notwithstanding that, I commend ministers for having accepted all the recommendations. Scottish ministers are the most powerful public body in Scotland. The regime was introduced to enable the public to have greater access to information, held by elected bodies and public authorities. FUI is uncomfortable for those with power, but it is a vital part of a transparent and open governance. I am proud that this Parliament introduced the regime, which is among the best in the world. However, FUI is only a small subset of transparency. Rhoda Grant's motion talks of records of meetings. I have been studying recently the Government papers in the national archives relating to how the Scottish office and the Scottish ministers lost control of key powers relating to the governance and finances of Holyrood palace. I have been struck by the detailed memos, notes and letters that provide great detail on the affairs of the law chancellor's office, the Lord Chamberlain, the Royal Household and the Scottish Development Department of the time. It is therefore vital that comprehensive, meaningful, accurate and substantive records are kept of the affairs of Government and public authorities. In that regard, I want to draw members' attention to Pares 173 and 174 of the commissioner's intervention, where he says that the examination of Scottish Government case files revealed significant gaps in the information that was recorded. In many cases, there was scant information contained in case files, in some there was no documentation or whatever. This is an excellent example of how an FOI regime can be gold standard, but if the information does not exist, or has been suppressed, or has been deleted, it is rendered ineffective. A further example of the need for a broader debate on transparency is the announcement today on consultation on draft regulations to establish a register of persons with a controlling interest in land. Ministers say that that would be free, and that is welcome. However, the bigger problem is that access to information on the land to which such persons have a controlling interest, you have to pay it. Behind paywall costs £30. Scotland's land information system, or SCOTLAS, was launched last year following a commitment by John Swinney to provide a comprehensive source on the information on the ownership, use and value of land. The system was launched late last year, but is useless. Business users, of course, get an excellent service. Instead of paying £30, they only pay £3. Moreover, data on land, owned by overseas companies, has been published by registers of Scotland, but it costs you £1,500 plus that to obtain, while the equivalent data is made freely available by the land registry in England and Wales, and the UK Government is committed to creating the largest open land data set in the world. Just some examples of the need for wider transparency. Five years ago, some journalists and campaigners, including myself from Scotland and Ireland, set up an informal FOI club. We collaborated on methods and sources. I am now in Parliament. Rob Edwards and other members of that FOI club now run the fair at a key part of the campaign by journalists a year ago. FOI matters to everybody. We need to open up all the sources of information and data that sit behind paywalls in government, since we are already falling behind the ambitions that are set by the Tories at Westminster. I do not want to be in that place, and I hope that ministers agree with me. I am grateful to the Labour Party for bringing forward this debate. For probably one significant reason, it allows us to retell the story of Alex Salmond's tartan trousers, where he managed to avoid, for over seven months, telling the public exactly how he had managed to get the taxpayer to pay for a £259.40 pair of tartan trws on his visit to China. The significant point about this is that it took a journalist seven months with repeated freedom of information requests to try and get the information out of the Government. Who really cares about that? Who really cares about Alex Salmond's tartan trousers? Well, I do, because it speaks to the wider problem, which is the Scottish Government's addiction to secrecy. Even for such a simplistic issue, such a simple issue, as a pair of tartan trousers, they were prepared to run a campaign for seven months. Although I could not really care much about Mr Salmond's sartorial inelegance, what I do care about is the fact that he and ministers go to Qatar to flog our public services to the Qatari sovereign wealth fund, and we have the FOI to find that out as well. I am sure that he bought a different pair of tartan trousers when he went to Qatar as well, because they were not good enough for Qatar. I was intrigued by what the minister said in response to a question from a Labour member about whether the Government ever broke in the law. He dodged the question, and that was quite intriguing. He gave an answer that was not quite an answer, and it was quite like when he summed up as to whether he can be clear about whether the Scottish Government has ever broken the freedom of information law, because the dodging of the question, I thought, told a bigger story. However, the report is quite damning, because it shows that journalists and MSPs were prevented from doing their own job. They were prevented from doing the scrutiny that we are elected to this Parliament to do, to ask to get information out of the Government, to expose the performance of the Government, not just of ministers but of Government as a whole. Special advisers were overruling officials to make sure that information was not being made public. Information was missing. There was a disregard for the statutory guidelines. All of that speaks to that addiction to secrecy that I have mentioned. I want to see the action plan, I want to see the progress on the action plan, and that is why Edward Mountain and his amendment is absolutely right. However, getting that right, sorting that the addiction to secrecy is not enough, because of the expansion of outsourcing by Government, the exposure, the coverage of freedom of information legislation has reduced. We spend about £11 billion on public procurement in the public sector. A lot of that is in private companies. We have made some progress in the last set of changes. That is true. However, there are still a lot of private companies that are not subject to the scrutiny that I think they should be subject to. I am pleased with the Government's amendment. We worked with them yesterday to make sure that I presume that they were not defeated in the Parliament today. Nevertheless, it is progress. I want not just to see a consultation, I want to see real change and a commitment to real change, because we should be following the money. We should be following taxpayers' money to make sure that the freedom of information regime covers all of the public spending, not just that that is strictly within the public sector. Therefore, I welcome the move today. I welcome the fact that we are able to make some progress, but we need to make much greater progress if we are going to change the addiction to secrecy that has got a hold of the Scottish Government. Thank you very much, Mr Rennie. Open debate, speeches of four minutes, tight four minutes, Daniel Johnson followed by Ben Macpherson. Mr Johnson, please. I think that it is often the case that when people talk of democracy they think of voting, when they talk of Parliament they think of powers, but the reality is that democracy and Parliament is reliant on much more than just those simple narrow factors. Civil liberties, rule of law, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, but transparency of government 2 are all vital to the work that we do in this place. 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, which is why the Freedom of Information Act was such an important addition in 2002. It has been shown to work from the high-profile scandals to the day-to-day statistics that we use in this place. It is an important part of our democracy, which is why the report that we got from the information commissioner is so concerning, because it points to conduct and behaviours from the Government that do not uphold this important aspect of our democracy, from a lack of clarity on request-handing, to the influence of special advisers in terms of clearance and as a filtering function, evidence of deliberate delay of information while comms plans are put in place, inadequate record-keeping and, perhaps above all else, the most worrying finding, the twin-track FOI process for those members of the public that are being separate from members of the press and members of this place. It is why the minister would do well to take the words of the commissioner more seriously when he said that the changes are required for consistency, both with the letter and the spirit of freedom of information law. It is not good enough to dodge the question whether or not the law has been broken. The question is there in the report for the Government to answer. Indeed, I think that the seriousness of the commissioner's report is made clear by the fact that he requires changes by September of this year. The reality is that the Scottish Government is failing to uphold, I think, the standards that we all expect of it when it comes to transparency, and that is not limited to freedom of information. I think that it is disappointing that the minister can find his remarks to freedom of information requests, because I think that the issue goes much broadly in that, even on the most basic and fundamental issue in terms of ministerial correspondence, correspondence might seem mundane, but it is vital to the work that we do in this place. It is the lifeblood of what we do in order to gain answers and insight for our constituents. For the reality is that, even on this, the Government is falling behind where our expectations would want them to be. A simple acknowledgments are taking two weeks or more to be received. The reality of this is that constituents are regularly waiting six weeks or more and up to 10 in order to gain answers. It is the same old tweets that we see time and time again in the public sector delaying the acknowledgement to gain more time to provide answers and to see due process. Likewise, on minutes—again, I would like the minister to provide some clarity on the Government's view as to whether or not they need to do better on minutes. Again, understanding who the Government is meeting, for what purposes and what commitments are given when they have meetings, is vital. I suggest gently that the Government looks at the mayor of London's office. I can tell the chamber that, on 19 April, the deputy mayor met the deputy commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, along with two officials from the city hall. I can tell you that because they published their minutes on a bi-monthly basis. It is up there on the website. It is simple and straightforward. There is not a lot of detail but enough detail to see who was there and what was being discussed. It is a simple suggestion and it is not very complicated. I fail to understand why this Government cannot be open and transparent on who it meets and when it meets. Strict four-minute speeches, please. Ben Macpherson followed by Oliver Mundell. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Like others, I welcome this debate today and, in general, the serious tone of this debate. As has been said, the transparency of Government and Public Agencies—indeed, if private companies matter to us all—is in the public interests that appropriate information can be obtained, analysed and considered. Media scrutiny of government is an essential part of our democratic process. I welcome the report. I also remind the chamber that we should be proud that Scotland has the most open and far-reaching freedom of information laws in the UK and that the 2002 act was passed by a previous administration and has been enhanced by the SNP Government. I welcome the report, which calls for greater clarity on the processes and procedures surrounding FOI requests. I also welcome the fact that the report recognises that the Scottish Government has already taken steps in the past 12 months to improve its freedom of information practice. The minister said—I agree with him—that the Scottish Government accepts the commission's recommendations in full, which we should all welcome, and will develop an action plan that is required by the commission to be published in September this year. In welcoming that action plan, I would suggest that members should vote for the Government amendment, which makes that clear. It is also important to recognise that, although we are having this debate today and, of course, the report's recommendations should be taken forward and, as I have said, the Government is already going to do that in full, we should recognise that our freedom of information legislation is widely recognised as being robust. The Scottish Government is better at responding to FOI requests than previous Administrations, and better than the UK Government. Do you think of the status in terms of the fact that, in 2017, 2,441 requests were answered on time, which is 83 per cent of total requests? In comparison, in the last years of the previous administration, only 61 per cent of requests were responded to on time. Furthermore, in the first four months of 2018, the Scottish Government responded to 93 per cent of requests on time, ahead of the 90 per cent target agreed with the Scottish Information Commissioner. That effective performance should be recognised in the context of the fact that freedom of information requests to the Scottish Government has been steadily increasing, with 3,046 requests received in 2017, 41 per cent more than the previous record of 2,155 in 2015. It is also worth noting that, last year, the Scottish Government responded to more than 5,000 requests outside of the FOI system, so there is that proactive response that is outwith the freedom of information system. I have been in touch with the minister also on the point about the draft order extending freedom of information to registered social landlords and received a very comprehensive response to my written question today, which I am grateful for, outlining the process that that draft order is being taken forward. In the time that I have left, just to conclude, I would like to state, of course, that the Scottish Information Commissioner noted multiple steps that the Scottish Government has already taken since last year to improve and monitor its performance with regard to freedom of information requests. The increased staff at the freedom of information unit has been increased since 2017. The welcome that the Government is taking forward is in full, and I look forward to seeing the action report in September. The Scottish National Party Government talks about openness, accountability and transparency, but the truth is that the rhetoric does not match the reality. We only need to look at yesterday's court judgment on fracking to see the depths that the SNP is willing to go to. Presiding Officer, the people of Scotland have had enough and deserve far better than a Government more interested in saving face than providing the facts. The Information Commissioner's report is just the tip of the iceberg, but, importantly, it does reaffirm what many already know—that there is a casual disregard for transparency and a deep-rooted culture of arrogance when it comes to freedom of information at the highest levels of this Government. The report makes for grim reading, and no amount of cherry-picking or claims of progress can excuse the appalling practices that it identifies. I found it doubly depressing to read the report, having witnessed many of the issues that it highlights during the education committee's recent consideration of the Children and Young People Information Sharing Bill, with the lack of clarity and information provided by the Scottish Government fell below the level of transparency that both the public and this Parliament should rightly expect. That led to a number of freedom of information requests being made. Presiding Officer, I must say that it is a sad state of affairs when parliamentarians are relying on freedom of information requests to get even the most basic information out of the Government. However, what is even worse is that those requests did not solicit the full or accurate responses that one would expect. Indeed, on multiple occasions since last October, I and others have sought factual information regarding the Scottish Government's engagement with committee witnesses in an attempt to establish the timeline of events. On multiple occasions, the responses that have been received are either incomplete or inaccurate. What concerns me most is the fact that a number of these emissions and errors have related to information that casts doubt on the original version of events given by John Swinney. In a number of instances, those emissions and errors have unfairly cast doubt on the action and integrity of others. I will not make accusations that cannot yet be substantiated, but there is no denying the emerging pattern. Clearance of FOI requests deliberately delayed, damaging emails omitted due to inadequate systems and processes and, of course, my favourite, the downright selective release of emails. Astonishingly, when John Swinney wrote to the committee on 15 March, he presented a handful of pages of emails as being representative of the Government's communication with committee clerks. Interestingly, when the Scottish Parliament itself was FOI'd, the equivalent correspondence runs to 70 pages and tells a completely different story. We still do not have all the answers and I remain deeply concerned about the damage that this episode has done to the Parliament, and I believe that far too often this SNP Government gets let off the hook. I have not given up and I remain convinced that it is only a matter of time until the facts come out in the wash, or at least in the next round of FOIs, or the round after that, because if you keep going with this Scottish Government, eventually emails turn up, new information comes to light and it is never very favourable to the Government. This is just one example of the SNP's secret Scotland, but my own experience and exasperation gives me a great deal of sympathy with the concerns raised by journalists and other MSPs, and that is why I urge colleagues across the chamber to send the Government a message at such and time. Enough is enough. Alex Rowley, followed by Kate Forbes. Presiding Officer, the building that we stand in today was designed in such a way as to reflect open, inclusive and transparent Government. It was intended to be a space where the public could visibly see the workings of their Government and create a shift away from the perception of Government being something that is far removed and lives in a bubble. Openness, transparency, Government of the people, by the people, for the people. Freedom of information was a key step towards in breaking down further the barriers faced by the public in seeing what their Government is doing. When Labour introduced freedom of information, I must assume that it knew that it could well make life more difficult for Government, but, nevertheless, it did so because it was the right thing to do. That is why it is the right today that Labour highlights the unacceptable situation that we find ourselves in, where we have a Scottish Information Commissioner highlighting major flaws in the approach of the Scottish Government in handling requests for information. No matter the political colour of the Government, it has a responsibility to the people of Scotland to be consistent with the letter and the spirit of the law. The way that the Scottish National Party Government has been dealing with information requests is not acceptable, and it is right that this Parliament says so in standing up for the democratic rights of all the people of Scotland. It is not for the SNP Government to decide what people can and cannot be told, and it is not for the SNP Government to treat requests differently based purely on who is asking. The commissioner's report criticised the practice of referring requests for clearance by ministers simply because they came from journalists, from MSPs and from researchers. As the commissioner said, in most cases it should not matter who asked for the information. The commissioner also highlighted the fact that it took longer to respond to journalist requests and made seven recommendations for further specific improvements to clearance procedures, quality assurance, training, case handling and record management, as well as monitoring and review procedures. Therefore, the message to the SNP Government is clear. Get your act together and respect the democratic rights of all the people of Scotland to access information. You now have the opportunity to listen to the information commissioner. He has given the Government the opportunity to fix those issues, and we must in this chamber demand that the Government does so. I reiterate Labour's view that this is also an opportunity to look at ways of improving freedom of information, extending the powers to all aspects of public service and making Scotland a world-leading example of open and transparent democracy. There needs to be clarity on the role of special advisers. The practice of not taking proper records in minutes of meetings must end. The Government has a chance to fix that. I do hope so that it takes that chance. As a big believer in freedom of information and a former and occasionally current FOI submitter, I have no problem in supporting the Government's amendment, which states that the Scottish Government has accepted the commissioner's recommendations in full and will develop an action plan as required by the commissioner to be published in September 2018. Despite the opposition's claims, the Scottish Information Commissioner's report recognises that the Scottish Government has already taken steps in the past 12 months to improve its FOI practices and that those changes have, and I quote, already resulted in a number of significant improvements to the Scottish Government's FOI performance. That is right because media scrutiny of the work of this Government and any other Government is absolutely essential to the reliability and the openness of our democratic processes and should be welcomed by all of us. I can think of countless reports in this week alone when the press has brought to our public attention the actions and behaviour of international policy makers, which range from heartbreaking to disgraceful, or both, as in the case of the immigration centres. Without their work, we would not know, there would be no outcry and there would be no pressure for change. Back in Scotland, FOIs are an important tool for the independent press. Scotland needs a healthy and honest press, never more so than at a time of conflicting reporting, social media and quote, unquote, fake press. Kezia Dugdale. The member for giving way. If the free press is so important, why did her Government make sure that journalists were treated differently and that answers were longer to be responded to? Kate Forbes. In actual fact, the commissioner stated that the percentage of refused requests for journalists was lower than it was for other requests or types, 10 per cent to 13 per cent. The minister has listed the Government's plans to make changes and to take steps to improve the FOI process further. I want to use my time to emphasise why I think that that is important. FOIs are quite simply a means of accountability. Andy Wightman used the word uncomfortable, and I think that that is an excellent word to use. Whether I speak as an elected politician or not as a member of the party of government or opposition, I value the legitimately uncomfortable scrutiny of the press. It is something that I value locally and nationally, and I have worked—I have got four minutes—and I have worked hard to support the local papers in my own rural Highland constituency, whether that is the West Highland Free Press, the Rossher Journal or the Strathie, to name just three papers, which do a sterling job of holding local politicians to account. I am sure that my Highland colleagues, who are leading the Oppositions debate, can testify to that. At a time when national circulation figures seem to be forever falling, those local papers are still relatively well read, still employ excellent journalists and still set the local agenda. FOIs are a key part of that because it makes information equally accessible and enables everybody, wherever they are in this country and whoever they are, to equally hold decision makers accountable. So, notwithstanding the comments that are made by journalists and the Opposition, which, as I can see, are being taken on board by the Scottish Government, the Scottish Government has welcomed and co-operated with the Scottish Information Commissioner's review and appeared to be happy to accept the recommendations in full to support the continued improvement. I think that that is right and proper. I call Brian Whittle to be followed by George Adam. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I think that we all agree that full transparency in government is a key requirement in holding the Scottish Government to account. That responsibility for the transparency in this place lies within the Scottish Government. Who, to be fair, responded positively and joined all Opposition parties last year when voting in the chamber following that debate, highlighting the issue of 23 journalists complaining in an open letter about the SNP's handling of FOI requests? However, here we are again almost a year to the day debating the same issue. The report by the Information Commissioner and the subsequent intervention by his office is quite remarkable, not least because it indicates a willingness by the Scottish Government to bury bad news and prevent negative headlines. It is even suggested that Nicola Sturgeon's ministers are breaking the FOI laws by creating a two-tier system that traded journalists, MSPs and researchers more harshly. On the deputy leader, John Swinney was found to have interfered in an FOI request to block the publication of several documents where emails show that Mr Swinney said that it would be better if material was withheld and special advisers subsequently looking for technical exemptions to withhold documents that the minister would prefer not to be released. Just because ministers would prefer documents not to be released is not sufficient reason to withhold them, no matter how politically damaging or embarrassing the content may be to the Scottish Government. After saying cross-party groups, I have attended the response to FOI's unwritten questions that is consistently raised by the group members and the recent dual CPG on chronic pain and arthritis in MSK conditions. It was a particular pain point, if you will pardon the pun, Deputy Presiding Officer. Out of every CPG, we always try to put forward some positive actions, usually including sending questions to the Scottish Government. By the standard of reply from the Government has been appalling, which necessitates a further question, mirroring the first question, and no wonder the amount of FOI's and PQ's is rising so quickly. I have found myself answering for the Government's reluctance to give it information, explaining the process and then suggesting resubmitting the same questions. I want to highlight a recent example that my colleague family Carson made when asking ministers about the land held by Scottish ministers in connection with the A75. The reply was, and I quote, "...while it is recognised that there may be some public interest in the details of land held by public ministers in connection with the A75 trunk road, specifically along the margins of the road itself, clearly we cannot provide information which we do not hold." In the space of a sentence, we are told that details of land held by Scottish ministers may be of public interest, but Scottish ministers apparently do not know what land they hold. I am not quite sure what is worse here, failing to tell people what land Scottish ministers hold or omitting that apparently Scottish ministers do not know what land they hold. I have also asked the Scottish Government many times about the A77 south of Whitlets and how many times that road has been closed. I use the reply as the detailed information is currently being collected. I will write to the member as soon as the information is available. The trouble with that response, of course, is that it was dated March 2018, three months ago. I am finding transport, health and education are the portfolios most at fault here, and they also happened to be the one under most pressure for underperformance. The Scottish Government cannot choose which questions it will or won't answer based on how it happens to be underperforming at the time. That game of question and answer ping pong has got to stop, Deputy Presiding Officer. If the Scottish Government want the volume of FYI's and PQs to reduce, then don't make us ask the same question repeatedly to get a half-decent answer. Follow the protocols that are already set out. It's not good to rub them afraid. I would ask the Scottish Government to take action that reflects the verbal commitment that they have made in this chamber, Deputy Presiding Officer. The last of the open debate contributions is from George Adam. That is a very important debate because how any Government conducts itself while going about its business is very important, but I think that we have to look at this honestly and be honest about the debate. I was going to mention what Edward Mountain did, Tony Blair's quote, or after all, because Tony Blair was the father of FYI. Tony Blair went further with that quote, although I don't agree with what he said. You can understand and respect part of his point of view. Tony Blair claimed later that FYI is not used for the most part by the people. He added, for political leaders, that it's like saying to someone who's hitting you in the head, hey, try this instead and handing them a mallet. In fact, this is a leader that's gone through many things and had different ideals throughout the point of view. Although I don't agree with, you can understand where he's coming from because there's been a number of mallets brought out here today. In all honesty, freedom of information has progressed since Tony Blair's Government brought it forward. There's been an awful lot of data and things changed as this has progressed in the world as well, so obviously it's going to be more difficult while processing all that as well. With that, the Scottish Government is doing well in this aspect of transparency. It's still not perfect, but it's doing better. In 2017, there were 2,441 requests answered on time—83 per cent, Presiding Officer. That's not a bad return. That is an extra 300 more requests than from 2015 or 2016. In 2017, just in a moment, 3,046 requests were received. That is incredible 41 per cent more than the previous record of 2,155 in 2015. Edward Mountain. My concern is that the number of freedom of information requests is going up, because none of them are being answered. Most of us are having to submit the more than one freedom of information request to try to get an answer to the straightforward question. George Adam said that there is no technology, openness and transparency, and people are engaging more with the process. That is the reason for the increasing numbers. It is also important to add, while we are talking about it, that during the first four months of 2018, the Scottish Government responded to 93 per cent of requests on time. That is ahead of the 90 per cent figure agreed with the Scottish Information Commissioner, and the commissioner's report recognises that the Scottish Government has already taken steps in the past 12 months to improve its FOI practice. That brings me to FOI requests from the media. We all agree that the media scrutiny of Government's work is an essential part of the political process. Last year, the Scottish Government responded to more than 5,000 requests from journalists outwith the FOI system. In the last month, the Scottish Government dealt with 449 inquiries from the media. The Scottish Information Commissioner acknowledged that specific improvements had been made on FOI requests. He went as far as to say in the report on page 28 that we can also observe a significant improvement in 2017-18, with average response time from dealing with media cases reducing to 19 days. That shows that things have been moved forward, and the Government has taken on board many of the issues that have been brought up. I am just closing at this point at the moment. Transparency and openness in any Government is extremely important. I think that when we are having this debate, we have to move away from the extreme hyperbole in the debate. There has been much of that in this debate, and although currently the system is not perfect, there has been a positive direction of travel by the Scottish Government. That is an important point. That direction of travel must continue to be encouraged. We now move to the closing speeches. If you would keep to time, please, I call Rachel Hamilton up to four minutes. I am glad to have the opportunity to close this debate for all the Conservatives. While listening to this debate, it appears that the reason that perhaps there has been an increase in FOIs is because there is a lack of information from the Scottish Government or a lack of transparency. I fully support freedom information, as we have heard today. Everybody here in this chamber does. The aim of this legislation is to be as open and transparent as possible on the substance of information. The Scottish Government should not be based on secrecy and control. We know that FOIs work is showing, for example, mismanagement of our NHS. There is an effective way to hold any Government to account. Denying elected members, staff and journalists access to information or deliberately slowing down that process is a practice that belongs to a dictatorship, not a democracy. Rhoda Grant said that this is a wake-up call for the Scottish Government, and it certainly is. I congratulate the work by journalists and MSPs in bringing those practices to light. Ministers and their special advisers should not be the judge who can and can't get information, never mind already being the decision makers on what information gets released to the public. FOIs are a legitimate method of sourcing information that is not already in the public domain. No minister or spad should stand in the way of this. You can imagine, Presiding Officer, how the SNP backbenchers would howl if it was the other way round, but it is not. This is the SNP Scottish Government ducking and diving from information that is not favourable to them. The minister was asked how many times the Scottish Government broke the law. No answer and rumbled by Neil Findlay. It is right that we debate this today to give the Scottish Government an opportunity to restore public confidence and trust. It is a damning report, and the information commissioner has given the Scottish Government until 13 September to produce a draft action plan for approval to address the recommendations. The Government's habit of referring media requests for clearance by political advisers is contrary to the spirit of FOI legislation. The report advised that the Scottish Government undertakes a detailed review of clearance procedures to clearly set out the roles of special advisers. That also outlined the procedures when case handlers and special advisers disagree and introduced clear rules for recording of decisions. The report said that the current procedure for clearance of information requests are unclear and lacking in detail. That makes the role of those involved opaque when it should be transparent. The report also recommended that the Scottish Government examined procedures in order to learn from poor initial decisions and prevent recurring failures and investigate if quality assurance would be better carried out by staff within directorates or agencies instead of special advisers. The report called to give media requests waiting an average of two days longer than others and 25 per cent issued late a fairer hearing. It is inherently wrong that a class of requesters is treated differently when processing requests for information solely because of who or what they are. That covers not only journalists but also MSPs and political researchers. Darren Fitzhainry castigated the way that Scottish ministers handled FOI requests as inherently wrong. The report calls for the Government to ensure that case handlers have sufficient knowledge and training to deal with requests. In the case of the report, it recommended that the Government to improve record keeping to ensure that FOI performance is properly tracked and improve the time for response rates. The Government motion shows a lack of understanding, I am afraid, and the Scottish Conservatives have misgivings about the motion. We would have preferred to have seen the Scottish Government get their house in order. They have promised to implement the report's recommendations in full, and we do recommend that. The Scottish Conservatives, in the name of Edward Mountain, would like to call on the Information Commissioner to publish an annual report on the Government's implementation of the action plan. We hope that tonight we will receive support for that, too. Alex Rowley, and I apologise if I misquoted him, said that we should listen to the commissioner. I hope that, from my earlier comments, members will accept that we are listening to the commissioner and that we acknowledge that the commissioner in his intervention report has made clear several areas for improvement of our handling process and that we are determined to take those forward and make those improvements. In the light of the commissioner's recommendations, I have already said several times that we will publish an action plan by 13 September, as he requests. However, I urge members to note that there have been considerably improvements already in place as part of the wider work in training in the Scottish Government. More resources are committed to our central FY unit, review responses are being cleared, and there is significant improvement in quality. I think that I will need to make—I have got four minutes, and there are a few points that I need to cover—significant improvement in quality and consistency. For almost a year, we have published information that was released in response to requests online—over 1,800 such publications to date. Following a concerted effort, our performance has also improved significantly in the last year. George Adam said in 2016 that we responded to 76 per cent requests in 2017, which moved up to 83 per cent, and so far this year we are sitting at 93 per cent. We are continuing to work to see what we can do to improve our overall performance. It should be clear—it is also important to point out that, in the majority of those cases, information is released. Against the backdrop of record numbers of requests, pointed out by George Adam, the Government is releasing more information on time than any previous Government. The release and publication of information in response to FY requests is only one part of our wider openness agenda. As Ben Macpherson said in 2017, the Scottish Government responded to more than 5,000 requests from journalists separate and, in addition to those handled under FY. It is important, I think, to make the point that our fantastic officials respond to the overwhelming majority of those media requests in less than three hours. Daniel Johnson made the point about ministerial correspondence, which, because of the shortness of this debate, we did not have a huge amount of time to discuss. However, in 2017-18, the Scottish Government received 43,000 pieces of ministerial responses of which 90 per cent were answered on time. However, I have previously mentioned the new systems that we are putting in place, which will, I hope, as well as helping to improve our FY performance and improve the tracking of ministerial correspondence. As referred to earlier, a wealth of information that is made available on the Scottish Government's website, details of all ministerial engagements, overseas travel, car journeys, domestic travel and ministerial gifts, and, I guess, are listed and are published proactively on GovDOT Scotland. As I announced in my opening remarks from July, we will proactively publish ministerial travel and subsistence expenses. However, we are always looking for examples of good practice elsewhere. I take on board the point that Daniel Johnson has made about the practice around the mayor of London's office, and I will look to see whether there are lessons to be learnt from there. That is absolutely in line with our approach to try and make sure that the Scottish Government is an exemplar in freedom of information. Freedom of information forms a critical part of the wider transparency agenda. We will, in line with the commissioner's recommendation, make changes and reform where it is required. We will continue to drive forward improvements in performance. We will take on board the points that are made by the Liberal Democrats in terms of looking to further expand. I know the point about the desire for legislation here, but there is a legal framework process that requires that consultation. However, I am very much on the same page that the Liberal Democrats are on, and I thank them for the way that they have approached the matter. It is worth acknowledging that when the Scottish Government was in the driving seat of those days, I think that it was the Liberal Democrats who were in the driving seat. Before I start, I invite all members to the campaign for freedom of information meeting tonight in committee room 1 at 6 o'clock, where they will tell us what they think of the information commissioner's report. We have had some very good speeches today from Rhoda Grant, Daniel Johnson, Edward Mountain, Alex Rowley, Brian Whittle, and excellent contributions. We have had very ambitious speeches from Kate Forbes and Ben Macpherson, and I am sure that they will be rewarded in due course. We have had another dreadful performance, I have to say, from the minister, who, every time he comes to this Parliament to talk about this issue, gets himself into a bigger mess every time. The most inviting and tempting speech of today was the offer to take a mallet to George Adam. Please form an order like you, everyone. Can we have a bit of peace in quiet? The report comes after an unprecedented action where 23 of our most respected journalists wrote to this Parliament concerned about the way that FOI was being mishandled. At that time, I suggested then that it may have been deliberate. Now we know that it was deliberate. Journalists and researchers and MSPs discriminated against because of who they are. That was a deliberate policy decision of this Government. The report raised many issues, including the role of special advisers. It goes on to say that the Scottish Government's FOI policies and procedures are not clear enough about the role of special advisers in responding to FOI requests. Formal guidance for staff was ambiguous, with the Scottish Government's guidance on obtaining clearance before issuing a response, advising staff that. If you are unsure whether you think that a case requires to be cleared by special advisers and ministers, please contact the SPAD's office for a STIA. Yet, when interviewed for the commissioner's report, the SPADs denied that they cleared anything. Then it went on to say that the site examination of case files identified numerous instances of delay in issuing of responses due to delays in obtaining clearance from special advisers. It said that the letter and the spirit of the law were not being met and that politically sensitive information was being treated differently. Let me interpret that for the minister. The Government broke the law and it made seven recommendations for further specific improvements. It clarified procedures as to why SPADs and ministers were screening the FOI replies. It also said that quality assurance is responsible for what comes out of Government and when it comes. Training, who has and hasn't been trained, case handling and case record management. We have all been denied FOIs and told them because it is too costly to accumulate the information. The reason that it is too costly is because the records management is so bad. Monitoring FOI requests, who is accountable. The commissioner says at one point, following a meeting, I requested a copy of the full tracking report from the FOI tracker up to the 17th of December 2017. After some considerable technical difficulties on 16 March 2018, I received the tracking report three months later. Presiding Officer, this is about the time that we often wait for freedom of information requests to come back. I say to the commissioner, welcome to the club. The journalists' complaints have been completely vindicated. The Government has been caught buying to write, certainly. Joe FitzPatrick. I wonder if the member will welcome the fact that the Scottish Government has agreed to implement all of the commissioner's recommendations. Neil Findlay. Of course I will welcome that, but it should never have come to this because you shouldn't have been operating a system so bad. There is much more that we have to do. Often, when we use FOI, we are told that minutes and agendas and briefings around meetings do not exist. I have previously asked for minutes and briefings and agendas for meetings between John Swinney and senior financiers, Derek Mackay and senior officials at the SFT, Humza Yousaf in Scotland, Nicholas Sturgeon in newspaper editors, Nicholas Sturgeon in Charlotte Street partners. No minutes, no agenda, no briefing. Can I ask the minister to tell us why there are no minutes of those meetings? Absolutely. You are in your last minute, Mr Findlay. So we need further information, we need a further inquiry that takes into account all of those issues because it is not just about freedom of information, it is about all those meetings that the Government has with very powerful people spending money on behalf of the public that no one would ever know happens because there are no minutes, there is no agenda, there is no briefing. So this is the Government's opportunity to put all of that right, as well as what is in the information commissioner's report. Thank you. That concludes the debate on a review of Government FOI handling and record keeping. We will now move on to the next item of business. Would you quickly change seats, please?