Open Government Partnership Steering Group minutes: September 2025

Attendees and apologies

Co-chairs

• Juliet Swann, Transparency International UK (Chair)

COSLA

• Simon Cameron, Chief Officer - Workforce and Corporate Policy Team
• Robyn Todd, Corporate Policy Team 

Civil Society

• Alison Hoise, Scottish Human Rights Commission
• Soren Kirk Jenson, the Infrastructure Transparency Initiative (CoST)
• Kelly McBride, Involve
• Sean McNamara, Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals in Scotland (CILIPS)
• Dr Lucy McTernan, OGP civil society and Scottish voluntary sector specialist
• Innes Morgan, Act with Purpose
• Susan Paxton, Scottish Community Development Centre

Scottish Government

• Jennie Barugh, Director of Performance and Strategic Outcomes (Niall Davidson, Fiscal Strategy and Policy Unit, deputising)
• Lorna Gibb, Deputy Director, Improving Public Engagement Division 
• Doreen Grove, Head of Open Government
• Martin Macfie, Head of Open Data
• Richard Foggo, Director of Population Health (Rachel Dowle, Head of Strategic Design, deputising)
• Eilidh McLaughlin, Deputy Director for Digital, Ethics, Inclusion and Assurance (John-hamish Heron, Digital Ethics and Inclusion, deputising)
• Catriona Laing, Deputy Director Climate Change (Helen Rule, Public Engagement, Domestic Climate Change, deputising)
• Michaela Omelkova, Data Ethicist

Secretariat

• Finlay McCartney, Open Government, Scottish Government

• Neisha Kirk, Open Government, Scottish Government
• Amy Watson, Open Government, Scottish Government

Apologies

• Graeme Dey MSP, Minister for Parliamentary Business (Co-chair)
• Councillor Steven Heddle, COSLA Vice Chair
• Annie Cook, Deciding Matters
• Jack Lord, Open Data Services Co-operative
• Andy Bruce, Director of Communications and Ministerial Support
• David Hamilton, Scottish Information Commissioner

Items and actions

Welcome and introductions

Juliet Swann welcomed attendees and noted her appreciation to Mr Hepburn MSP for his commitment to open government in his role as Minister for Parliamentary Business.

On behalf of the Open Government Partnership (OGP) Steering Group, she expressed the group was looked forward to working with Mr Graeme Dey MSP, the newly appointed Minister for open government.

Juliet acknowledged Mr Dey’s absence due to his transition into the new role and the short notice of the meeting, but noted that he had encouraged for the meeting to proceed.

Purpose of the meeting

Juliet outlined the meeting’s purpose, which was to revisit how trust and transparency can be embedded in the next action plan. She noted that the group is at the beginning of the co-creation phase for the next plan - a core requirement of the open government process involving collaboration between government and civil society on the plan’s themes, commitments, and milestones.

Co-creation delivery partner appointed

It was confirmed that the Scottish Community Development Centre (SCDC) has been appointed to support wider civil society and public participation in the co-creation process. Juliet congratulated SCDC on their appointment.  

Susan Paxton confirmed her involvement will be as an OGP member exclusively. Other SCDC colleagues will support the process as a delivery partner with a clear separation of roles.

Background

Juliet confirmed that the group had agreed to incorporate the development of a trust and transparency strategy as a key component of the forthcoming action plan. This strategic approach will articulate a clear overarching vision and define ways of working, drawing on examples from other OGP member countries.

The group previously heard from the OECD on the benefits of such an approach and took particular inspiration from Canada’s Trust and Transparency Strategy, which, like Scotland, acknowledges the challenges posed by the technical and inaccessible language often associated with open government. The use of the phrase trust and transparency is considered to be more relatable to the public than open government. 

Main focus for the meeting

Juliet highlighted the ongoing decline in public trust in government, noting that trust is a critical factor in enabling meaningful public engagement. Rebuilding trust is therefore a central objective of Scotland’s next Open Government Action Plan.

To support this, a two-phased co-creation process will be undertaken to help create Scotland’s next Open Government Action Plan, and inform a future trust and transparency strategy:

1. Phase one – trust perceptions: this phase will explore public perceptions of trust in government, including what trust means to people, the reasons behind its decline, and what characteristics are associated with trustworthiness.
2. Phase two – thematic deep dive: insights from the first phase will inform a more detailed exploration of specific themes. This will ensure that the commitments and milestones developed as part of the action plan are aligned with the principles of trustworthiness and are capable of demonstrating them in practice.

Attendees were informed that their role was to help shape the questions for phase one of co-creation by considering the following overarching questions:

• What does trust mean to you - who do you trust, what has led you to trust them?
• Are there any shared qualities that we could draw from these examples?

Trust in Scotland

Amy Watson shared a presentation with attendees. This explored the concept of trust in government, its significance, current trends in Scotland, influencing factors, and potential strategies for improvement.

Key takeaways

• Trust is the belief that institutions will act competently, fairly, and in the public interest. It is also measured by public confidence in government institutions (trust in government, OECD)
• Trust matters because it supports compliance, effective governance, and crisis response
• Trust in the Scottish Government is declining, with recent surveys showing the lowest levels of trust since devolution. Surveys referenced included the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey 2023 and Scottish Household Survey 2023
• Main drivers of trust include government responsiveness, transparency, and fairness; public perception of influence over decisions; satisfaction with public services and; by how governments respond to challenges than by the challenges themselves
• Trust is harmed by poor communication, lack of fairness, and exclusion from decision-making
• To rebuild trust, government should:
  1. Strengthen citizen engagement and participation
  2. Invest in transparent, evidence-based communication
  3. Maintain high-quality, fair public services
  4. Embed Open Government principles of accountability, transparency, and participation

Discussion part one

Attendees were asked to discuss the following questions in breakout rooms:

1.  What questions or prompts would help stimulate a conversation about trust and transparency with the public? What do we want to know?
2. What might we hear back from those questions?

Juliet outlined that the aim of the discussion was to explore how the public could understand trustworthiness as an indicator, noting that the way questions are phrased can significantly influence how different groups interpret and engage with them.

She highlighted the group's value in testing and refining the approach to these questions to help inform phase one of the co-creation process.

Feedback

Feedback from breakout rooms highlighted questions or prompts used in phase one need to take into account the below features and dynamics.

Feeback has been grouped into common themes:

Complexity of trust in government

• Trust is shaped by perceptions of multiple layers of governance (local, Scottish, UK), which can be conflated by the public. Mapping trust is challenging due to these spillover effects and blurred responsibilities, but doing this could be beneficial to help support consistency in understanding
• External influences such as media, misinformation, and political dynamics also play a significant role

Transparency and accountability

• Trust is built when government actions align with stated values and are accompanied by visible accountability and delivery
• Transparency should include:
  1. Clear communication of decisions and rationale
  2. Accessible and access to information
  3. Feedback loops showing how public input has influenced outcomes and lessons government has learned to demonstrate integrity
  4. Honest acknowledgement of what can and cannot be acted upon

Public inclusion and engagement

• Inclusion in decision-making fosters trust, even when outcomes differ from public preferences
• Emphasis should be placed on when people felt heard or involved

• Trusted, accessible spaces such as libraries, and ongoing engagements such as citizens’ panels, should be considered. Citizens’ panels and assemblies were highlighted as effective models for sustained engagement. An example noted during discussions was Scotland’s Climate Assembly

• Participation should be sustained, not one-off, and properly resourced
• The importance of the feedback loop should be considered as people lose trust when their input disappears with no visible impact
• Misinformation is increased by sources of information. There is a need to understand where trustworthy communications come from

Framing and language

• The way questions are framed significantly affects engagement. Using positive framing such as  “when did you feel heard?” is more effective than negative framing
• Specific, contextual questions such as “who do you trust to do what?” are preferred over generalised ones. This will help uncover whether the public trusts government to deliver certain outcomes but not others
• Language should reflect the diversity of public experience and avoid assumptions
• Aiming for “high trust” as a metric might not be useful. The focus instead should be on whether government is acting in trustworthy ways
• Misinformation and disinformation should be considered to get the foundations right on these

Trust as a two-way relationship

• Government must not only demonstrate trustworthiness but also show that it trusts the public. It was noted the upcoming co-creation process will help to understand what this can look like in practice
• Trust should be relational and built on mutual respect, not treated as a performance metric

Consistency and fairness

• Inconsistencies across departments or levels of government can undermine trust. There is a need to test this hypothesis that a lack of consistency between different levels of government could be contributing to distrust
• Fairness, honesty, and openness – especially in acknowledging mistakes as this isn’t expected of government – are key to building meaningful trust
• A consistent approach to engagement and delivery is essential
• Perceptions of fairness are evolving, and attribution of blame can be subject to manipulation. It can be difficult to counter but being more open can help

Understanding public perceptions

• There is a need to explore:
  1. What the public sees as trustworthy
  2. Who they trust and why
  3. What motivates trust or disengagement
• Acknowledge the distinction between mistrust (healthy scepticism) and distrust (disengaged cynicism), and explore what causes people to move between them

• Explore drivers behind blind trust versus meaningful trust. There is a need to know what blind trust and meaningful trust is built on, and what healthy behaviours government can practice

Challenges and opportunities

• Financial and resource constraints impact robust planning, and geopolitical pressures complicate trust building efforts. An example of a geopolitical pressure noted during discussions was standards of living
• Government must balance honesty about difficult issues and their impacts whilst maintaining and building public support for the measures and change that is necessary. An example of a difficult issue noted during discussions was climate change
• A key area to address is participation as it is often the first area to be cut during budget pressures
• There is a need to understand what is motivating people, including government
• There is a need to consider government’s position with shifts in technology, as this can undermine trust. Government needs to be conscious of how it operates in this context

Discussion part 2

Attendees were asked to discuss the following questions in breakout rooms:

1. How might we start to react or act on these responses?
2. What would be the next steps we would need to do in order to show to the public we are taking forward their feedback, and are demonstrating trust worthiness?

Feedback

Discussions showed a need for an inclusive, phased and interactive approach to engagement with the public on the issue of trust in government – and checking in on interpretations overtime. It also needs to meet people where they are, using familiar and trusted spaces.

Themes identified from the first discussion were again reflected in the group's feedback for the second discussion.

Practical actions discussed included:

• Develop a structured feedback mechanism that is routinely practiced across government. This should clearly state what was heard, what will be acted on, and what will not and why
• Revisit updating and applying the Participation Handbook more consistently across government
• Consider a multi-stage engagement process using trusted spaces and scenario-based exercises. Government could also explore using challenge statements or personal experience mapping to help the public explore trust and transparency in practical terms
• Ensure shared ownership and delivery of commitments between government and civil society
• Use diverse, reliable communication methods and sources to reach different audiences. Alongside publications, this can include different forms of communication such as accessible, mediated channels
• Ensure clarity on roles, responsibilities, and timelines for delivering commitments. This includes regular, structured revisiting of commitments and progress
• Ensure government only seeks input on areas where it has the power to act
• Ensure public participation can be properly resourced and protected, even during budget constraints
• Build capacity for public participation and co-creation
• Embed continuous forms of engagement with the public, with regular check-ins and opportunities to revisit ideas
• Demonstrate that decisions are made in the public interest and that fairness is a guiding principle
• Understand who the public trusts and why is essential
• Understand what causes shifts in public trust and how to prevent disengagement
• Use the OGP model more widely as it is valued for its step-by-step accountability and independent reporting – although resource intensive, it provides clarity and trust

Actions and next steps

Juliet closed by making attendees aware that the first meeting with the SCDC to discuss next steps for the upcoming co-creation process would be held next week.

If attendees were interested in developing this first phase of co-creation and continuing the conversation, they were encouraged to contact the Open Government team and Juliet Swann.

Doreen Grove confirmed that for the upcoming co-creation they wanted to broaden the base of those involved – both from government and civil society.

The provisional date for the next meeting is Thursday 27 November, 13:00 to 14:00. Any non-members wishing to attend a meeting as observers should contact the secretariat (opengovernment@gov.scot).