THE Scottish Government has defended its record on Freedom of Information (FoI) requests following criticisms from a LibDem MSP.
Tavish Scott said changes to FoI policy – which now sees all information released in response to requests published online – are having a “chilling effect on journalism”, particularly investigative reports.
Concerns were raised by journalists and campaigners earlier this year about a lack of replies, late responses and minutes of meetings not being taken leading the Scottish Government to publish all FoI responses online.
Now Scott is contending that ministers have “figured out they can evade scrutiny, deter the submission of requests and spike stories by devaluing the information”. He added that the wide publication of requests “devaluing the information”.
The Scottish Government defended its position, pointing out that FOI legislation has been extended to extra public bodies and that access to national records has been reduced from 30 years to 15 as part of a drive to improve transparency.
“This is an extraordinary statement from Tavish Scott, who is suggesting that the Scottish Government is now releasing too much information, implying that we should instead cut back on the amount of material we release,” said a spokesman for Parliamentary Business Minister Joe FitzPatrick.
“Under this government, freedom of information has been extended, and Scotland now has one of the most open and transparent information and governance systems, which has been praised internationally.”
The Scottish Government’s position was unanimously condemned by MSPs in June, who called for an independent inquiry.
In response, the Government announced it would publish all information released in response to FoI requests online from July. However this move has since drawn criticisms of its own, with the former LibDem leader Scott launching scathing criticism of the system over the weekend.
“Ministers accepted a degree of criticism of their performance. However, the only measure they have really championed to address the fact they weren’t responding properly to freedom of information requests, publicly publishing all material released under FoI, is fraught with dangers of its own,” said Scott.
“Just weeks into the new regime I am hearing from journalists that this is having a chilling effect on their work. We need quality investigative journalism to acquire the truth and get to the bottom of spin. These changes are designed to deter that.
“Immediately publishing information publicly removes the incentive for journalists to pursue stories as they fear that whatever they uncover will immediately be made available to all their competitors. Fact and figures obtained under FoI may be just one part of a wider story in need of diligent pursuit.”
He added: “This wheeze means the Scottish Government can appear transparent while achieving the opposite. Ministers have figured out they can evade scrutiny, deter the submission of requests and spike stories by devaluing the information.”
The Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act was passed by the Holyrood in 2002 and gives everyone the right to ask for any information held by a Scottish public authority – over which the Scottish Parliament has jurisdiction – with a response required within 20 working days. It fulfils a similar purpose to that of the UK passed two years earlier by Tony Blair’s Labour government.
Some information can be exempt, however an organisation must explain the exemption.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel