The SNP and Freedom of Information

In 2002, the Scottish Parliament passed freedom of information legislation that was much more robust than that passed by Labour in London. Want to take a wild guess why? That's what Lib Dem coalition partners do.

The then SNP opposition ended up voting for the legislation, although they said then that they thought it didn't go far enough. I had a good rummage round the interwebs today and found this from Roseanna Cummingham:

"I think parliament should feel some considerable satisfaction that it is debating a piece of legislation that underlines the difference between this Parliament and Westminster.

"Our freedom of information regime will certainly be much more robust than the Westminster proposals and I've absolutely no doubt campaigners in England and Wales will continue to emulate what we have here in Scotland."

However, Ms Cunningham said the Bill was "not perfect", highlighting three areas where the nationalists wanted to see changes made. These were class exemptions, ministerial vetoes and the cost of accessing information.

Finally, she urged the minister to "force the pace" on implementation of the Bill.
She said: "If they are given three, four or five years, then it is in the nature of things that they will take three, four or five years - that is human nature."

What a big difference 10 years and being in power make!

With the fiasco over the court case over legal advice on EU membership still fresh in our mind, we can also look to the Information Commissioner's scathing verdict on the SNP's record on FOI.

Today, the Scottish Parliament is debating the first stage of a bill which removes some FOI powers, such as publishing correspondence with Royal Family if it's in the public interest. This, apparently, and bizarrely from the SNP, is to bring us into line with the rest of the UK. So, from not going far enough when they were in opposition, they are now taking us backwards.

There are good practical reasons why we need to have a robust FOI system. The culture of secrecy at NHS Ayrshire and Arran was a disgrace and it took great persistence by a nurse to force the issue.

Willie Rennie talked about the importance of FOI at our Conference in Inverness just after Alex Salmond had refused to entertain the idea of widening powers to include arms length organisations like housing associations:

But my fear is that Ayrshire and Arran is only the tip of the iceberg.I think they are institutionally secret. But what about the rest of the public service? We need a Scotland-wide investigation into the practices and procedures of every single NHS board, every police authority and every department of government.

So that we can proudly say that the institutions of our country are honest, open and accountable.

That’s not because it’s nice to do but because it really matters – learning the lessons from patient deaths, rooting out bad government and holding the powerful to account.It may be awkward to those in charge but information and power is safer when it is shared.

That’s why I appeal to the First Minister today to commit to extend the laws to housing associations, PFI companies and the other government bodies that can cut corners and who can dodge and delay.

We deserve to hear from them and I want action from the First Minister to make sure that happens

 While supporting the general principles of the Bill, the Scottish Parliament's Finance Committee had some concerns. 

77. The Committee notes the views expressed by the Cabinet Secretary in evidence. However, the Committee notes the report from Audit Scotland which identifies around 130 major ALEOs and shares the concerns of witnesses set out above.
 78. While the Committee recognises the Scottish Government’s intention to defer consideration of the extension of coverage until the Bill has been considered by Parliament, it invites the Cabinet Secretary to provide details and timings of how the Scottish Government intends to take forward this work and clarify what the options are which she is ‘actively considering’, including the possibility of Stage 2 amendments to section 5 of the 2002 Act. In the light of this response, the Committee will reconsider its position on this issue at Stage 2.

They also don't much like the absolute exemption for Royal Family. 

Ahead of today's debate, Willie Rennie said:

I strongly support the Finance Committee’s calls for the Scottish Government to set out firm plans for the extension of Freedom of Information laws. For too long the SNP has given vague signs of support towards extending freedom of information, but they have yet to set out stall of what they would extend.

There is an increasing anxiety that more and more government funded bodies are escaping scrutiny. We’re supposed to be improving openness and transparency, not secrecy. The Scottish Government must set out how and when it plans to ensure the public’s right to information follows the public pound.

The big issue is that bodies such as the construction company building the new Forth crossing are using large amounts of public money but aren't subject to the same scrutiny as a Government organisation. The same goes with housing associations. A secretive government at national or local level can hive off key decisions and functions to arms length bodies that aren't covered automatically by the legislation. That's not good enough. There has to be a presumption of openness unless there's a very good reason for that not to be the case.

As I write, Nicola Sturgeon has been speaking in the Chamber and has given some encouraging signs that she is prepared to consider extending the powers of the Bill. We'll see how far she is prepared to go when she brings forward the amendments at Stage 2. 

Why some women have real reason to fear the World Cup

I have been approaching the forthcoming month long football fest that is the World Cup with an air of resignation. If it's not about Inverness Caley Thistle, then, frankly, my dear, I really don't give a damn and it annoys me that every four years this one sport dominates our national lives in the way that it does. It winds me up, and nobody in our house even likes the sport that much. It must be a nightmare to live with a fan who will hog the tv at all hours to watch the most insignificant matches. I really have nothing to complain about, though.

It made me sad, and furious, in equal measure to see a discussion on BBC Breakfast this morning saying that domestic violence increases by as much as 30%, or at least that's just the incidents that get as far as the Police, during this particular sports event. Apparently the peak last time round was on the day that England was knocked out.

What is it about wall to wall football that incites 70 extra men a week in Leeds to beat up their partners? That is only one city - what's it going to be like across the UK. That will an extra 70 extra women and all of their children who will be spending the World Cup living in fear. Alcohol has to be a factor - sitting around drinking beer and watching wall to wall football from morning till night troughing can after can of Stella is bound to increase the likelihood of violence. Then you see the often disgraceful on field behaviour when players, who get paid so much that anger management therapy really is within their budget, behave like two year olds having tantrums. Why is it that David Beckham kept his position as a national hero when he wasted the opportunity to represent his country by getting in a strop and kicking a member of the opposing team 12 years ago?

Add to that the really quite appalling way that many footballers treat the women in their lives - Ashley Cole, that would be you I'm talking about, just for starters, and you can see where this culture of violence comes from. The alcohol, the accepted anger on the field, the general attitude towards women all combine to make kindling that just requires a tiny spark - maybe a linesman having an off day, to cause an explosion which leads to a violent attack on a partner.

Many millions of people across the world will watch the World Cup and just enjoy the football. They won't get drunk and beat up their partners or children. However my thoughts will be for those families for whom the final whistle heralds a drunken, violent onslaught - and for those in the charities and the Police who will be working to support them. Is there not some role for the footballing world in all of this? Some England player could surely express horror and disappointment at the violence this tournament is known to cause and urge people to drink and behave responsibly? Maybe some sort of longer term campaign in the run up to future major football tournaments could be organised?

This week the Scottish Parliament will spend 2 and a half hours debating violence against men. Certainly that's an issue and statistics obtained by the Liberal Democrats showed last year that domestic violence against men was up by 167%, and that against women up by 40%. Those are truly shocking figures. I hope that part of that is due to more incidents being reported - I remember way back when I was involved helping a domestic violence charity that women would endure around 36 attacks before asking for help. While there does have to be help for men available, the vast majority of attacks are against women and children. With no direct involvement in the World Cup for us, there may not be such an increase in attacks over the next few weeks. However, it's an issue that should certainly be raised in the debate.

Nicola Sturgeon to face MSPs over fraudster letter

Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon makes a statement in Holyrood about the letter she wrote on behalf of (not in support of) convicted benefits fraudster Abdul Rauf. I've already made my feelings clear on this. The dangers of allowing casework to be spun and twisted in the political arena could mean that people with genuine cases and genuine needs might be turned away because their marginal seat parliamentarian is too scared to do anything in case opponents try to gain political capital.

What I want to see from Nicola today is that she's taken on board some of the less hysterical concerns that have been expressed. If it had been me, I'd have written a similar letter, but I wouldn't have described an £80,000 benefit fraud as a mistake and I wouldn't have explicitly asked for a non custodial sentence in the conclusion of the letter. I'd have asked the court to take the points I'd raised into consideration when deciding its sentence instead. These are important points. I don't want to see her cowed, but I do want to see her serious. Alex Salmond may have made some good points in her defence at FMQs the other week, but the effect was lost in amidst all the usual bombastic bile. It's not big and it's not clever.

I guess it's too much to hope that Labour can actually conduct themselves in a dignified manner. They seem to care more about the prospect of a ministerial scalp than the actual facts. I want to hear less of the "is there nobody the SNP wouldn't defend?" type hyperbole and a bit more decorum. I'm not holding my breath.

I don't want to what's happened to Nicola to turn into a series of MSPs being dragged into Parliamentary show trials simply because they've tried to do the best for their constituents. That would completely demean the institution.