 Rwyf ysgrifennidau yng Nghymru, mae hwn i'n gwneud o'r団fau JavaScript o unrhyw ddweinwch fahrennwch ar gyforth iawn. Mae Gwladwch yn ni ar hyn o'r ddweinwch. Felly, gan fan hyn o'r団fau, rydw i'n cerddio Caerdydd fiamau o'r Rajahol Ayrnau Gweldraeth yn ôl i'n 52 ffudl bankai. Mae Gwladwch yn ni ar hyn o'r Rajahol Ayrnau Gwladwch i'n gwybodaeth mewn ddweinwch ar eich gweldraeth Hymno ar y rhainnwch, of the Scottish Government's handling of FOI requests. The motion called for an independent inquiry into the way the Scottish Government deals with requests and for post-legislative scrutiny of the Freedom of Information Scotland Act 2002. The Scottish Government supported that motion. Post-legislative scrutiny is, of course, a matter for parliamentary committees to take forward. In respect of the independent inquiry, the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee agreed on 11 September that the Scottish Information Commissioner, who is independent of government and holds extensive statutory powers of regulation and enforcement, might be an appropriate person to undertake such an independent inquiry. On 15 November 2017, the commissioner wrote to me confirming his intention to carry out a level 3 intervention into the Scottish Government's FOI practice. He wrote to me again on 2 February this year, setting out the terms and scope of the exercise. Members should be in no doubt the thurriness of the process that the commissioner has undertaken. Commissioner and his staff have had full access to the Scottish Government's tracking systems for FOI and EIR requests. Over a period of months, commissioner and his staff have undertaken a detailed inspection of more than 100 individual case records relating to handling practice between 2015 and 2017, including cases cited by members of the media. In addition, they have conducted in-depth interviews with a range of ministers, special advisers and officials across the Scottish Government. I put on record my thanks for the professionalism of the commissioner's staff and their efficient and business-like approach. I am pleased that the report notes the positive attitude that is shown by the Scottish Government towards the intervention. I consider the report to be thorough and well-balanced. Although it is very clear whether improvements are required, it notes that there is already good practice and acknowledges the improvements that the Scottish Government has been making in its procedures over the past 18 months and the results that have been delivered in terms of faster turn-rines in requests. In his assessment, the commissioner makes clear that he has found no evidence to substantiate a number of the criticisms that have been made about the Scottish Government's approach. The report does, however, contain a series of significant recommendations for improvements in the Scottish Government's performance and procedures. As with all Scottish public authorities, the Scottish Government should meet the standards of good practice set out in the statutory code. No authority, least of all Scottish ministers, can take those obligations lightly. We therefore take the commissioner's report very seriously. We accept all the recommendations that it makes and, as required by the commissioner, we will prepare and publish an action plan to put them into effect. Turning to some of the report's specific recommendations, a central focus is on the request clearance process. The commissioner highlights a lack of clarity around roles and responsibilities, potential for confusion in our procedures and guidance about what is meant by clearance and concerns about the time that it takes. As many will know, the FOI process can be complex and it is important that those involved in the process are clear about their roles. The legal duty to comply with the FOI and EIR legislation lies with ministers, who are accountable for all responses issued by the Scottish Government. Decisions on release can be and, in many cases, are delegated to officials. However, it is entirely appropriate that ministers are cited on the content and content with proposed information releases in line with the requirements of the FOI legislation in sensitive and high-profile areas. They will, after all, be the ones who have to answer questions about the information once it is released. It is also appropriate, as in any other area of government, that ministers are able to have the advice of special advisers in doing so. The current Scottish Government procedures reflect those points. However, there is no doubt that the process itself can be time-consuming and our guidance on roles needs to be clearer. In light of the commissioner's reports and in line with our continuing efforts to reduce turnaround times, we will review current guidelines and assess the appropriate levels at which decisions on release for different categories of information are taking. The commissioner has considered in detail whether the Scottish Government treats and manages requests from journalists differently compared to requests made by other people and whether there is any detriment to the quality of the response as a result. The current Scottish Government guidance sets out a number of grounds on which case handlers should consider the views of special advisers and seek ministerial clearance, including in respect of whether the request is from a journalist, MSP, political researcher or other high-profile requester or whether the request is for sensitive information. On the fact of explicitly identifying a particular type of requester, the commissioner concluded that there is a difference in treatment. He acknowledges and I quote that it may very well be the case that many requests for information from journalists, MSPs and political researchers are for sensitive information in which case it may be entirely justified that clearance is required at a higher level in the organisation. However, he stresses that our clearance system should be based on the nature of the request and not on the category of request on. We agree and I am pleased to confirm that our internal guidance has been updated with immediate effect to make clear that considering the sensitivity of requests should be based on the information sought rather than the identity or role of the person making the request. It is important here to note that the commissioner found no evidence that the difference in the clearance processes resulted in detrimental treatment of the requester other than in timing. He also found no evidence that the involvement of special advisers resulted, as has been suggested in the open letter from the media, in any deliberate attempt to reduce the amount of information disclosed to journalists or in any improper motives in the application of exemptions. His report notes and again I quote that the greatest number of cases sent through the clearance process were not subject to material change. Indeed, as the report states, the most recent statistics show that the percentage of refused requests was actually lower for journalists compared to other requester types. From close assessment of the case files, the commissioner cites just one example of a deliberate delay in releasing information while a handling plan was put in place. As the commissioner highlights, the most recent statistic shows response times of immediate requests to be generally in line with response times of non-media requests. I am pleased that the report acknowledges the steps taken by the Scottish Government in the last 12 months to improve and monitor FY performance, as well as the significant improvement in performance. A range of improvement initiatives are under way. From July last year, we have proactively published all information released in response to requests received by the Scottish Government. We have significantly increased capacity in the Scottish Government's central FY unit, which provides advice, training and guidance across the organisation. We have introduced central oversight and clearance of review responses. Reporting measures have been put in place enabling improved tracking of requests. Work is also under way on improvements to guidance and training. To further improve reporting and monitoring, an improved tracking system is in the later stages of development. Those improvements will produce longer-term benefits. I emphasise the considerable improvement in performance in the last year against a continued increase in demand. In 2017, the Scottish Government received 3,046 requests, a 41 per cent increase in volume on 2015, and almost a threefold increase since 2006. In responding to those requests, 83 per cent were answered on time more than the total number of requests received in either 2015 or 2016. Against that backdrop of increasing request numbers, performance in the first five years of this year was at 93 per cent, ahead of the target set by the commissioner of 90 per cent. If FY requests continue to be received at the same level, we estimate that we will process 4,000 requests this year. The information commissioners report highlights examples of good practice and expertise in the Scottish Government. Where shortcomings have been identified, we will seek to rectify them. Having accepted the commissioner's recommendations in full, we will now undertake detailed work on how they can be put into effect. The commissioner requires the Scottish Government to use a draft action plan that addresses his recommendations for approval by 13 September, and we are committed to meeting that deadline. The approval plan will be published and we will work closely with the commissioner on its implementation. Ministers take their responsibility for freedom of information very seriously as part of our commitment to open government. The Parliament can be rightly proud of Scotland's FY regime. The aim of any Scottish Government should be to act as an exemplar of good practice. Today's report provides a firm basis for achieving that aim. We will have up to two o'clock for questions, starting with Oliver Mundell to be followed by Rhoda Grant. Listening to that statement is not entirely clear that we were reading the same report. After more than a decade in power, it is unbelievable that it is going to take a report like this to even get the cabinet secretary to budge an inch from where we were last June. This report highlights a number of especially concerning cases, one where a case handler became increasingly frustrated, repeatedly trying to get clearance from special advisers for two months, and another where a special adviser said that an exemption should apply when the FOI unit said that it was flimsy, another where a special adviser asked for an exemption to be applied and the case handler argued against it, and information was withheld after an unrecorded meeting. That report reveals an SNP Government that not only deliberately stands in the way of legally binding FOI requests made by the media, but is also a Government that goes to great lengths to delay or influence the information that is provided. Will the cabinet secretary now apologise for the shameful record that his Government has on transparency? Clearly, the member has not read the report in full. As I said in my statement, it is clear that the information commissioner has found that the quality and level of information provided to all requesters is equal. However, he identifies—we have accepted and I accepted last year—that timeliness is a particular issue, and it was a particular issue around journalists. He also identifies the progress that has been made since last June. The member says that we are no further forward since last June, but the report clearly identifies the substantial progress that has been made since last year over the past 18 months. Substantial progress in terms of the quality and timeliness of our responses in spite of a significant increase in the level of FOI responses that I receive. I have to put on record my thanks to the staff across the Scottish Government who, in spite of increased workload, have managed to rise to the challenge of that increased level of FOI response. We believe firmly that FOI is an important right and an important part of our democracy. I am pleased that, across Government, our staff have managed to rise to the challenge of that massively increased threefold increase since the last administration level of volume of requests. This year, we are providing 93 per cent of responses on time ahead of the 90 per cent target that was set for us by the commissioner. Presiding Officer, this is a damning report. The Scottish Information Commissioner has said that the Scottish Government has to take action to act consistently within the letter and the spirit of the legislation. It is obvious from the report that media MSPs and their researchers are being treated differently. The 23 journalists who signed the joint letter to the corporate body have now been vindicated. The commissioner has also said that they were unable to tell if the information given to those groups is different due to deficient record keeping. Because FOI requests from media MSPs and researchers take longer to reply to and are subject to a different process, the suspicion must be that the information given is also different. Can I ask the Government how they identify media and researcher requests currently and what steps are they taking to ensure that those requests are anonymised in order that they receive the same information as anybody else? I also ask him to confirm that, in five of the seven areas examined by the Information Commissioner, action is required. Will he now ask the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee to look into the standard of Scottish Government record keeping? In terms of the guidance in relation to dealing with media and other areas, we did have a different process. That was something that was in the public domain. The guidance relating to different types of requests was something that had been in the public domain for a considerable amount of time, so it is not a secret document or a secret approach to government. We have listened to what the Information Commissioner has said. While we have said that we will work on all the areas where there are recommendations with the Commissioner to put in place a plan, we felt that that was one recommendation where we felt that it was important that we make immediate changes. We have made changes to that guidance to make it clear that media, MSPs and researchers should not be treated differently because of their position, and that is in the public domain from today. In terms of what committees decide that they want to do in terms of their workplace, I do not think that it is for government to direct committees. Clare Haughey, to be followed by Brian Whittle. I appreciate that the minister confirmed the commissioner's finding that there is no evidence that journalists suffered detriment as a result of government guidance, but there are obviously concerns among the profession. Can the minister confirm what discussions he has had with the NUJ to discuss their concerns around FOI? The member is right in terms of the commissioner's finding, but, as I have said, he did make what I think was a strong recommendation, and we have put in place new guidance on that matter. Media scrutiny of the work of government is an essential part of our democratic process, and we welcome that scrutiny. Indeed, we facilitate that scrutiny. Every week, ministers undertake a wide range of media interviews, and every day the Scottish Government responds to a high volume of media inquiries. Last year, we responded to more than 5,000 requests from journalists entirely outwith the freedom of information system. The latest figures show that, last month, we dealt with 449 inquiries from the media, and they were typically responded to within three hours. On the basis of the question that I asked about NUS, I met with the NUJ last year to discuss some of the journalist's concerns. It is probably worth pointing out that many of our staff are members of the NUJ and other trade unions. Again, I put on record my thanks to those staff for their efforts in helping us to continue to improve our performance. The report begins to reveal the Scottish Government's standard of response, and it is starting to slip. I have personal experience of the lens that the Government will go to to more or prevent information from reaching the public domain. It is not only a problem where I request parliamentary questions and written answers with MSPs across the chamber routinely receiving the low-power responses that I have already raised from my party to raise with the corporate body. If transparency is the key for holding Government to account, will the cabinet secretary commit to not only taking on the report's recommendations but also looking into the Government's record in answering parliamentary questions? Transparency is very important. I think that the parliamentary process around parliamentary questions is very transparent. A member will put in a question and a minister will respond to it. If the member does not like the answer, he will try to ask the question in another way, and all that is done. I do not see how that can be any more transparent than it is. The member mentioned information getting into the public domain. The information commissioner's report does not substantiate the comments that the member made there. Further to that, the Government has gone further than any Government, not just here in Scotland, but across the UK in proactively putting information into the public domain. That is something that I am keen to continue to do. The information is very important. We are keen to take steps to continue to empower our population, and information is very much a part of that, and we will continue to take the steps that we are taking. Clearly, members of the public have to get their information from a range of sources, and if the UK Government were to follow suit of the Scottish Government, then there would be a lot more information in the public domain. James Dornan will be followed by Neil Findlay. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I think that that was an opportunity time for a Conservative politician to mention transparency. The minister stated that the Government will produce an action plan to put the commissioner's recommendations into effect. Can he provide any further info about the plan at this stage? Obviously, we will take some time to look at the recommendations in detail, and we will work with the information commissioner to make sure that the way that we propose to take that forward in our plan will achieve the aims that he and we would be seeking. The deadline would be for that to be published and agreed before the 13th of March, 13th of September, and we will, of course, put that plan and the proposals in the public domain. Neil Findlay to be followed by Colin Beattie. With that report, the Government has been found bang to rights. Poor procedures and practices and inadequate record keeping, political filtering, withholding of records, unjustifiable delays, discrimination against journalists, MSPs and researchers and so much more. So now that the Government has been rumbled on how it disseminates information, what is it going to do about a key issue, not within the remit of the report, but mentioned in it, namely the recording of information, minute taking and the generally poor or non-existent record keeping of the Government? Finally, does the minister accept that there is a direct correlation between the draws that MSPs receive in written parliamentary answers and an increase in freedom of information requests? I do not recognise most of what Mr Findlay said. However, on the point of... Let's conversations across the chamber please, the minister is on his feet. Mr Swinney and Mr Findlay, please let the minister speak. I do not recognise most of what Mr Findlay said from the report or from reality. However, the Scottish Government fully complies with all record management policies, including those set out in the ministerial code. The code is clear in that formal meetings should be recorded, setting out the reasons for the meeting, the names of those attending and the interests represented. We consider our record management guidance to be robust. However, as part of the programme to upgrade the corporate electronic record management system, the Scottish Government is revising the current information management training strategy as a part of the process. We will ensure that all staff are re-engaged with this process. Can the minister confirm that the power to override or veto a decision of the commissioner has never been used in Scotland, unlike by successive UK Governments under UK FOI legislation? The member is absolutely correct. The member says that I should respond to the report, but I will respond to the question. I think that it is a very important question, because not only has the veto never been used by this Government, but it has never been used by any Government in Scotland. It is with great regret that the veto is regularly used, not just by the current UK Government but by previous UK Governments. Andy Wightman, to be followed by Tavish Scott. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and thanks for the minister for fan sight of his statement. I also want to thank the minister for having the good grace back in June 2017. I am sorry. Would members please stop having conversations across the chamber, listen to the questions and the answers. Mr Wightman. Good grace back in June 2017 to admit that there were problems and that the complaints were legitimate. I commend the Scottish ministers for accepting all the recommendations. I also want to put on record the commendation for the Scottish Information Commission on a very thorough piece of work, which reveals serious failings. For example, it makes clear that different treatment was given to journalists and MSPs and that that has no basis in law. Can I ask the minister two questions? First of all, given that in his statement he says that the legal duty to comply with FOI and EIR legislation lies with ministers, and given that the Scottish Information Commissioners say in paragraph 140 that there is nothing in FOI law or the code of practice that permits authorities to treat a certain group of requesters less preferentially than others, does he agree that the Scottish Government have broken the law? Secondly, why did Scottish ministers draft special rules in guidance for handling media requests in the first place? Which minister instructed that and which minister signed it off? The information commissioner has given us recommendations about how we make changes to those processes. We have accepted the commissioner's recommendations and, on that particular point, we have put in place new guidance with immediate effect. Tavish Scott, to be followed by Ash Denham. I also thank Mr Fitzpatrick for the courtesy of sending out his statement. Can I say that it would help his front bench that he did not spend the entire time shouting at everyone else during the seasoners of this issue? Mr Swinney did not like it when he spent the entire time that a Parliament would reflect shouting at everyone else during the course of the statement. His department is one of the worst in here. The minister was brave enough to admit that MSPs and journalists have had their requests handled in a different way from other people that make FOI requests. Why was that so? What is the definition of sensitive information that he mentioned in his earlier answer? Who defines sensitive information? Which minister will make the decision over what is sensitive or not sensitive? Will he lay those answers in the parliamentary library so that we can all see them in the transparent way that he mentions? When the former Deputy First Minister Jim Wallace introduced the FOI regime and legislation back in 2002, the SNP's front bench spokesman Michael Matheson said, and I quote, "...the effectiveness of the bill will not merely be down to its provisions. A change to the culture of secrecy that exists is required." If that is so, why have we needed today's statement and this report? The report was at the response to a parliamentary motion just over a year ago. The Standards Procedure of Public Appointment Committee made the point that they felt it was appropriate that the Information Commissioner was the right person to carry out that inquiry. I am giving a statement today to respond to those points. As a Government, we are taking on board the points that the report has made. I would have thought that we should be thankful for that. We are already going further than any Government has ever gone in the coverage of freedom of information. I will be soon bringing forward regulations to extend freedom of information to cover social landlords, something that the previous administration never managed to get around to. We are making efforts, not just in terms of the way that we deal with to improve the way that we deal with freedom of information requests, but we are making substantial efforts to increase the level of information that is released proactively. Proactive release means that the information is there before people have to request it. I encourage anyone to look at the Scottish Government's new website, and the functionality there is useful in people being able to find the information that they want. One of the concerns of the previous Information Commissioner was that, as we increase the levels of proactive release, we get to the point where we might have almost an information dump, and it becomes difficult for people to access what is useful. I encourage people to look at the functionality of our new website, and they will see what an exemplar is. The minister mentioned that work is happening in terms of improvements to guidance and training, and that an improved tracking system is now being developed. Can he provide any timelines for those being finalised and in place? The training is on-going, and we will continue to work with the Information Commissioner to make sure that the training that we are providing across the Government is as appropriate as it should be. We have also increased the staffing of the central FOI unit, which is there to provide extra guidance and support across Government. The new tracker system will be very important. It should be rolled out, I think. I hope that it is always a bit risky to give a definite date for when a new system will be rolled out, but we anticipate that it will start in August, and that is part of a range of digital improvements across the Scottish Government. Just reading directly from the report, journalists, together with MSPs and political researchers, are expressly made subject to a different process for clearance than other requester groups. While I received reassurances throughout my interviews that journalists' requests were dealt with in the same way as requests from any other person, that is clearly not the case. I am going to ask the same question that two other MSPs have asked already. We have not had an answer. Why was it not the case? Why were journalists dealt with differently? The Government officials would provide responses in line with the guidance that was in the public domain and had been for a number of years. Today, we have accepted the commissioners' recommendations to change that guidance, provide clarity and I would hope that members would support that. Willie Coffey to be followed by Edward Mountain. Thank you. I know that it is a long and fading memory since the last Labour Lib Dem administration, but could the minister outline how this Government's performance in terms of requests answered on time compares with the last full year of that previous administration? The last full year of the previous administration, the response rate was 61 per cent. In 2017, the Scottish Government responded to 83 per cent of requests on time. Again, we need to remember to put that in the context of the near threefold increase in the volume of requests. If we look at that even further in terms of this year, we are responding to 93 per cent of responses in spite of a further increase in requests. Again, I want to put on record my thanks to all the staff who have helped us in achieving that 93 per cent target. Thank you. I am delighted to have the report as a result of a motion that I brought to this Parliament last year. I want to ask you a question based on eight words in the report, which is recommendation 2.4, given the porpocy of information in the case files. Why is there no information in the case files? Is it weeded out or is it not put in? Is it a policy of yours or is it just the way it happens? That is clearly one of the recommendations that the commissioner has suggested, so we need to look at how much information is kept in case files, and that is one of the recommendations that we will accept. Thank you very much, and that concludes our ministerial statement. We are going to turn now to portfolio questions.