Scottish Parliament has key opportunity to boost Freedom of Information

The Campaign for Freedom of Information in Scotland (CFoIS) is cranking up its campaigning this week to urge the Scottish Parliament to back a series of amendments to the Scottish Government’s Freedom of Information (Scotland) Amendment Bill. This Bill will have its Stage 3 debate in the Scottish Parliament on Wednesday 16 Jan and a series of amendments are proposed to ensure FOI rights extend to public services provided by private, voluntary and arms-length bodies. 

The CFoIS wants the Scottish Government to heed the concerns expressed by the Finance Committee’s Stage One report. The Campaign is taking part in a briefing meeting for MSPs on Tuesday 15 Jan, the day before the Parliamentary debate, and will be circulating a written briefing outlining the need to amend this bill to reinstate eroded rights to information. The meeting will be chaired by Paul Martin MSP, and addressed by Carole Ewart of the CFoIS, and Dave Moxham of the STUC.

Carole Ewart, Co-Convener of the CFoIS, said

Carole Ewart - co-convener, CFoIS

“A number of MSPs, including members of the Finance Committee, have submitted amendments to this Bill, as the Scottish Government appears unable or unwilling to accept our arguments in favour of protecting our information rights.”

The major reason why the Bill should be strengthened is to retrieve peoples’s information rights lost as increasing outsourcing of our public services removes services from coverage.  Neither the Scottish Government nor previous Scottish Executive Administrations have ever used their powers to add named bodies and categories of bodies to the list of organisations covered.

Amending the Bill is also necessary to meet the Scottish Government’s own FoI principles, 1 and 2: that “the public’s right to know remains an essential part of an open, democratic government and responsive public services” and FoISA “will be adjusted where it is necessary and sensible to do so”

You are all urged to get in touch with your MSP to lobby them to support the amendments (Amendments 1-9, 12 and 14) being backed by the Campaign for Freedom of Information in Scotland. There is  an email message available on the UNISONScotland website, that allows Campaign supporters to lobby their MSPs easily. 

Carole Ewart said  “At a time when Audit Scotland estimates over 130 arms-length bodies are involved in delivering public services, and when the Scottish Government is proposing bills like the Procurement, and Community Empowerment Bills that will bring more bodies into public service delivery, it is very concerning that they seem oblivious to the threats these pose to everyone’s right to know about how our cash is spent.”

An article on the need for a 'purpose clause' in the legislation written by the Captain is also published today's Scottish Review.

• a copy of the briefing sent to MSPs in advance of the debate will be available  from Monday on the CFoI website at http://www.cfoi.org.uk/scotland.htmlhttp://www.cfoi.org.uk/scotland.html

Today brings a key decision for our Freedom to ask for Information

The Campaign for Freedom of Information
has driven the campaign

Today (Wednesday) a key opportunity presents itself for our Scottish Parliament to take a second step towards an opener, more transparent Scotland. Its Finance Committee, having taken one step in that direction, receive the Scottish Government’s Freedom of Information (Scotland) (Amendment) Bill back to discuss submitting amendments to its provisions. The one step forward they have already taken is to issue a report at stage one criticising key aspects of the original legislation - the lack of any concrete proposals to deal with the crucial problem of the increasing delivery of our public services by non-public organisations, and the Amendment Bill’s attempt to ape the ill-considered Westminster exemption barring any enquiry into communications with the Monarch or her heirs (the so-called ‘Royal’ exemption).

High Ground?

While the public pronouncements of the Scottish Government have consistently sought to take the accountable high ground in the freedom of information (FOI) debate - they even have their ‘Six principles of FOI’ rapidly moving deeper into the bowels of the SG website - their record in practice has left some observers wondering what the real agenda is.

And this isn’t a reference to high-profile controversies like attempting to take the Commissioner to the Court of Session over revealing whether legal advice on the EU and an independent scotland, or over the release of the figures they had commissioned on reform of the Council Tax. The problem this time is that a clear opportunity to amend major flaws in the law offered by the introduction of an Amendment Bill, has so far not been taken; a huge disappointment to campaigners and practitioners.

Ten years of no use

Despite the concern expressed ever since the original Act was passed - concern that delivery of public services by non-public bodies removes them from the public scrutiny intended in that Act - governments since have neither used the provisions in the law to ensure such bodies were covered, nor have they made any attempt to change the law to create automatic coverage.

The announcement of an Amendment Bill by the new majority government gave campaigners hope that the consultation on designating some non-public bodies the previous minority administration had started and then dropped, would be revived. But no such proposal emerged.

The Bill that was deemed worthy of Parliamentary time introduced a small number of worthy improvements it is true, but the claim that it would ‘ensure that the legislation remains fully effective’ has a hollow ring to it. The Finance Committee’s Stage One Report outlined much of the evidence outlining why variation of service delivery is eroding the effectiveness of the legislation.

Committee Opportunity

Nicola Sturgeon - her withdrawal of the
Royal exemption is welcome

The Committee this morning has a number of important amendments to the Amendment Bill to consider. It is to be welcomed that the government has seen the sense in deleting its new ‘absolute’ Royal exemption. However tackling the major flaw of the erosion of coverage is still not being done. Even the review of Section 5 that his proposed is only scheduled to be done every three years, and not start until 2016! As the Scottish Information Commissioner says “given that the section 5 power has now lain dormant for ten years, I would question whether it is appropriate to delay the laying of an initial report for a further three and a half years, until June 2016.”

Fortuitously, a series of amendments have been laid before the Committee, by one of its members, Elaine Murray MSP. While there may be a technical issue with one, overall they would mean a huge step towards re-establishing Scotland’s FOI regime as a leading example to other countries, and a powerful utility in bringing openness and transparency to our public services. Let’s hope our representatives on the Finance Committee support them.

Campaign sounds warning for new Information Commissioner

The Campaign for Freedom of Information in Scotland has welcomed the Scottish Parliament’s recommendation for the new Scottish Information Commissioner, but have warned that the pressure for extending and promoting the legislation must be kept up, and stepped up.

The Parliament yesterday approved the recommendation of its Corporate Body to appoint Rosemary Agnew as the new Scottish Information Commissioner, succeeding Kevin Dunion, who retires from office later this month. 

Carole Ewart, co-convener of the Campaign, said: “We congratulate Ms Agnew on her appointment, and look forward to continuing working with the Commissioner's office to develop and promote this important legislation. The Scottish Information Commissioner is a key figure in the success of FOI and, as FOI is at a pivotal stage in Scotland, we would like to see her continuing the positive developments her predecessor has established."

The campaign is concerned that the pressure to extend the FOI laws in Scotland to cover all providers of public services isn’t dissipated by the change of Commissioner. Currently, if public authorities outsource services to charitable trusts, housing associations, joint public/private partnerships or privatise service delivery, people’s rights to information can be lost as these types of bodies are not covered by the legislation.

Extension of the coverage can be done by Scottish Ministers under existing law, but a minimal proposal to so so before the last election was dropped. The Campaign has been critical of that withdrawal. The existing Scottish Information Commissioner, Kevin Dunion,  has also indicated that he supported such an extension, as he was concerned that outsourcing public services was leading to the loss of people’s information rights, particularly important during a period of cutbacks and austerity. 

Kevin Dunion has certainly made his mark as the first Commissioner, and has established FOI as a much-used right. He has also made it his business to work closely with all sectors of the sector - providers and users - a development far too little undertaken by regulators and agencies. That this is appreciated by both sides, was seen at his final FOI conference in December where tributes were led by Sandy Longmuir of the Scottish Rural Schools Network, and Ken Meechan of Glasgow City Council! 

It is particularly galling in this important area, that the Scottish Government, with its commitment to transparency, has put extension on the backburner - ostensibly because the organisations who would be covered don’t like the idea. Down south, even the Tory-led coalition is pressing ahead with some extensions (to such bodies as the Local Government Association, and the Association of Chief Police Officers) while here their equivalents can still refuse requests under the legislation. It would be a major impediment if Scotland had freedom of information legislation that doesn't allow public access to information held by all providers of public services.

Does increase in ‘constitutional froth’ mar our Scottish media?

In a previous job, a colleague used to regularly advise us to be aware of what he would call ‘froth’ in some reporting of the political scene in Scotland. By that he meant stories that were headline news in some or even all newspapers, and consisted of opposing politicians attacking one another. These stories (of which there were many) were distinguished by the topic of the debate/discussion being either of minor importance, or incapable of any kind of resolution by the combatants involved, eg a consultation.

This has come to mind again recently. It currently seems that a whole raft of spats are being created in the media by pronouncements from Scottish or  Coalition Governments (or Labour Opposition). From consultations on gay marriage, and Scotland’s rail travel, through pronouncements about the impact of independence on the Scottish economy and renewable energy targets to even the furore over ‘doing-gate’ in the Scottish Affairs Committee, the sight of our politicians attacking one another over the constitutional question is becoming less and less edifying (or significant). 

To add to the spectacle, the reporting of these tiffs - from uncritical adoption of the participants’ view of their importance, to the sensationalist bigging-up of the ‘rows’ - seem to blank out sensible analysis and investigation of the issues at all. How much of this is due to continual cuts in journalistic and editorial resources, and how much due to the predetermined political stance of the media in question needs further study, but it does not lead to good reporting.

Now I don’t want to suggest that the individual topics and issues have no validity or importance, at all. Heaven forfend that I might suggest that the Catholic church secretly approves of gay marriage, for example! Or that CitiBank may have a vested interest in rubbishing renewable energy per se. But it is interesting how these disputes tend to end up concentrating on the ‘Referendum’ when we all know that this is some years away, and will not be able to be run successfully unless Westminster and Holyrood come to some agreement (or at least armed neutrality) on key issues. It isn’t even yet clear whether the SNP want a one or two question referendum - or what that would mean for any result!

Am I alone in thinking that at least part of the reason for this froth is to distract us from the key issues that impact on people in Scotland, and the failure of both legislatures to address these? And that this suits both of them?

After all, is Alex Salmond be pleased or upset that George Osborne attacks Scotland’s investment record? Is George Osborne? Is Salmond reasonably happy to be seen as a ‘modern, liberal-thinking FM’ over gay marriage? And while the archaic and macho operations of Westminster are indeed something to be opposed (as we all did in the Constitutional Convention, hoping and planning for a more co-operative and mature Holyrood!) is the SNP ultimately pleased to leave a vacant seat in the Scottish Affairs Committee and wash its hands of a scrutiny of the Scotland Bill where it doesn’t have a majority? Incidentally, the best comment on this episode must be by Joyce MacMillan in her Scotsman piece (on her blog here).

So there can be good reporting. We do have journalists (like Joyce, but not only her) who can blow away the froth and get to the nub of the issue. But increasingly this role is reserved for the commentators. News reporters tend to slot happily into pre-ordained nationalist or unionist tracks, using hyperbolic prose to inflate partisan pronouncements and prejudices into ‘facts’ or suggestions of ‘facts’. (I thought the idea - seriously mentioned by a senior Scottish reporter on Wednesday - that the Electoral Reform Society was part of an anti-SNP ‘conspiracy’ was the nadir of this tendency!)

The latest fight appears to be over an almost unbelievable consultation document on Scotland’s rail transport from Scottish Government agency, Transport Scotland. If you hadn’t had previous with this agency, then it might even look as though the outrageous suggestions in this document were there deliberately to be able to be removed as a ‘listening response’. I have to say that my experience suggests that they are not that forward thinking. But as Scottish Government ministers line up to distance themselves from their own organisation, a suspicion must remain.

At the end of the day, when people are crying out for an economic policy that addresses the crisis we are in, and uses the excess profits of the finance industry to support those who are suffering because of the fallout from the banks’ criminal risk taking, how are our governments responding? Apparently, by ignoring these problems in favour of claim and counter claim about ‘running Scotland down’ or ‘breaking Britain up’.

When two establishments are trying to tell us about the overwhelming importance of the constitutional question, we need more from our media than unquestioning/sensationalist reporting - from whichever side of the constitutional divide. It is also particularly important when the parliaments both have a built-in majority, compliant in one case, and scared in the other, that they are held to account. In this our media has a crucial role. When will we see it adopting this important task?

Independence - which way will the Trades Unions jump?

This is the substance of a contribution I made to a recent debate organised by the Communist Party of Scotland on the topic of trade unions and independence. Other contributers included Chris Stephens of the SNP TU Group, Jimmy Cloughley of the CPS and ex-UCS Steward and Dave Moxham, DGS of the STUC. I believe it is planned to put out a pamphlet collecting the contributions together. 

Despite the somewhat febrile, and often almost certainly manufactured reports that pass for debate on the issue of independence in the press - and not just the tabloids - This is certainly the first serious discussion that I am aware of that covers this ground - a fact that in itself is significant and says much about where TUs are at the moment. More on that later.

Who are we talking about?

The first thing to say about Scottish Trade Unions is of course that there are damn few of them! With the exception of the teaching profession, the vast majority of TUs operating in Scotland are UK organisations which sometimes have a Scottish organisation with a degree of autonomy, more or less broad depending on the organisation.

(Of course some TUs are actually British Isles-wide operations - with sections in the Irish Republic and/or Northern Ireland, but that would be to open up another whole debate).

Despite the increasingly separate nature of law, politics, media and attitudes in Scotland, very few TUs have properly addressed these factors. When I was appointed by Nalgo in 1989, I was the only TU publicity person employed in Scotland, and even then I was officially attached to the union’s London department, who told me that I should not be dealing with the Scottish media!

The arrival of a Scottish Parliament, a merger of unions and a reorganisation of HQ departments took place before even UNISON - and I venture to suggest that they were in the forefront of addressing the issues - set up the type of structure that took cognisance of the new realities in Scotland.

Now the recognition of these needs is wider, but I venture to suggest that it still isn’t universal in the TU movement. This, of course, has an impact not only in the union concerned but in STUC - a fully autonomous body, able to (and I suggest very successfully) articulate and promote the TU movement’s profile and views with Scotland’s politicians, media and civic society. The STUC, however, is resourced and financed by these same central UK organisations with varying levels of autonomy. The last factor of all to be autonomised, of course being finance!! (Even UNISON - with its high levels of Branch organisation, policy, media, campaigning, bargaining, and communications autonomy, still pays its STUC affiliation fees from London, and technically its delegation to Congress is bound by UNISON UK policy).

A rough count suggests that of 650,000 TU members in Scotland - 580,000 are in UK-based unions.

What shapes their policy?

Of course, if we are looking at attitudes to independence, it will not always be the case that this will be dependent on where the union is based. Policy-making is sometimes a complex process in our TUs and there are degrees of relaxation on whether policy on Scottish issues is made close to the source, or remotely from London - often degrees of relaxation that vary according to the issue. In UNISON for example, London would be relaxed about a Scottish policy decision being taken on (say) devolution of broadcasting, but would be far from relaxed on a Scottish policy calling for (say) the break up of the NHS. In either case, however, ultimately the union’s policy will be adopted by the union as a whole.

In fact the NHS proves to be an interesting case in point illustrating another factor that will influence TU attitudes to independence. It is something that has already caused waves within UNISON and will no doubt, have varying impacts on other unions. The principle that someone doing a particular job in one hospital or clinic (or any other workplace) should be paid the same as someone doing that job in another, is a strongly-held union principle and one that underpins grading structures in UK-wide organisations such as the NHS. 

It is of course, also one that employers increasingly want to scrap, so the thought that independence may give that attack further support may well predispose TU activist minds (on both side of the border) in opposition to independence.

A similar concern may also apply in regard to reserved legislation such as that covering employment, work-related benefits and health and safety. Should you lose protection in work when you cross a border? Currently TUs would answer ‘No’ to that, though of course current Tory proposals to attack these rights may sway debate in this area.

Affiliation

A third factor that will militate against TUs deciding in favour of independence, is of course, affiliation to the Labour Party, which is not in favour.

There are 14 Scottish unions affiliated to the Labour Party. (One union affiliate has no members in Scotland). And they cover around 441,000 of the members in Scotland.

Of course, that isn’t the whole story in terms of their membership. Many of the affiliated unions will have substantial membership numbers in Scotland who do not pay the political levy or who do, but would support independence in any case. 

I think UNISON is unique in its twin-track affiliated/non-affiliated political funding, but the SNP TU group has been campaigning for some years now for people to opt-out of affiliated political funds in other unions, (in my view a serious mistake). This will have had some success. Plus there will be members of all affiliated unions down South who don’t pay the political levy and/or who may be part of what I call the ‘sod-off Jock!’ tendency increasingly seen in parts of England.

So, you will have a membership, even in the affiliated unions, who may be ripe to hear the arguments for independence. Whether they will have the strength, the power or the tenacity to have an impact on their union’s policy on the matter, however, is debatable.

Non-Affiliated - potential supporters?

Of course to view those unions that are not affiliated as natural supporters of independence is also a mistake. in my view. While the likes of the FBU and RMT might be thought to be only too happy to be an awkward squad - especially if Labour is on the opposite side - it should be remembered that the FBU is of course part of a UK bargaining machine similar to that in the NHS. So too are the Civil Service unions. and for them you can add an almost pathological aversion to publicly siding with any political view that would be seen as party political - in the way that independence will.

Even in my own union, the NUJ - most likely to be relaxed about dealing with union organisation across boundaries - after all they already do it in Ireland, I think the view that as journalists we must be even-handed to all sides will hold a lot of sway.

But this brief survey is maybe a little missing the point. After all, TUs are essentially - much as we might not like it - not think tanks, not policy wonks breaking new ground with blue sky thinking - but essentially pragmatic organisations that have been created to defend and advance the living and working standards of their members. In many ways reactive rather than proactive organisations.

How will they decide?

I don’t doubt that in the fevered hothouses of TU research departments in Edinburgh and Glasgow (but of course mostly in London) there are people pouring over research, and analyses trying to work out the ‘what-if’s’ of Scottish Independence. But it isn’t occupying the waking hours of their members. No doubt, if and when a referendum is called, then the TU movement will take a decision (or many different decisions) on their policies, but I venture to suggest, if we are talking about reactive organisations with a clear function on defending members, then those debates will be set in the context of ‘what is the impact on our members?’. In a nutshell - will Scottish Independence be a benefit or a detriment to those members - not just in Scotland but across the memberships? At the current time it seems unlikely that this question will be answered in the affirmative.

Are concerns allayed by independence?

The current concerns of TU members - are remarkably similar and similar across the nations of the UK. The threats to jobs, pay, services and of course, currently pensions stems from the Westminster Government’s austerity measures and is being fought - in my view correctly - with a UK-wide co-ordination. While the Scottish Government is able to (and does) criticise these policies, they find themselves in the position of largely passing on the cuts to their recipients in the public and voluntary sectors.

Indeed, while ‘It’s all the fault of Westminster’, is a sentiment we can probably unite around, the suggestions so far about what an independent Scotland would look like, is currently unclear, and the signs are not good. For example, why does the Scottish Government want to control Corporation Tax so badly? To ensure that the bankers and financiers who drove us unheeding into the debt crisis pay back the bail out that they received from us? Apparently not, what is required according to the Scottish Government, is less tax on business to attract more overseas companies into Scotland. The Scottish Government has been notably business friendly in many areas -  the Scottish Futures organisation with its attempts to continue the PFI route (watch out for more of that shortly, by the way), is merely another example.

On the positive side, of course, in Scotland there is a greater value placed on, and defense of public services and public provision. I wouldn’t want to ignore that courageous decision of Nicola Sturgeon to build the new SGH through public provision for example. 

But this attitude to public services largely crosses party boundaries in Scotland - and, what is more, has been a distinctive feature of devolution in any case - so any specific advantage of independence still remains to be clearly spelled out.

Still a huge job to be done

In short, there is some way to go before the Scottish Government or other advocates of Scottish independence can articulate an argument that details a practical case that working people will significantly benefit from independence for Scotland, and such an argument will be important in attracting potential allies from TUs and their activists.

Does all this suggest that those who wish to call for independence need to look elsewhere and ignore the TU movement? Can I suggest they shouldn’t? When Alex Salmond celebrated his stunning victory on May, he said he planned to try and govern though consensus. There has, unfortunately been little practical experience of that so far, but I think that it remains the only sensible aim.

And maybe if it can’t happen inside the Parliament, maybe it should happen outside. After all the trade union movement - well at least the majority of it inside Scotland - isn’t, I don’t think, scared of independence. After all there are already many areas where they have suggested increasing powers to be devolved and contributed much of the evidence to the much-maligned Scotland Bill - devolution of broadcasting, equal opportunities, and immigration legislation are proposals that come immediately to my mind. There are more.

No, the TU movement currently cannot see the relevance of the independence debate, and when the issue looms larger in their ken, they will remain to be convinced. Not an impossibility, but a job that remains to be done.