Chamber and committees

Thank you.

Thank you.

Not at all. In this landscape review we do not just want to look at overlaps, we want to look at where there are potential gaps.

We all have biometric passports now. We can imagine a future in which payment systems are biometric or library cards have biometrics. We can imagine biometrics becoming a standard identification technique. When we imagine that landscape, we need to make sure that gaps are covered and that the system is robust, so that there is no instinct to create a new commission every time a new thing is developed. So, I appreciate your answer on that.

I have a question to help me to make sure that I have not made a mistake. Many of the other commissioners and SPCB supported bodies that we have spoken to have very public-facing roles. Am I right that your role is entirely, or nearly entirely, not public? The public do not come to you when they have a problem; your role is about supporting the police.

For those aspects that are public facing—when someone has a complaint or wants to come to you for information or because they have an issue with the police—something that we have talked about with other witnesses is the idea of having a one-stop shop.

If a citizen or resident of Scotland has a problem with a public service—maybe with the police—and they need help but do not know where to start because the landscape is complicated, would it be useful for them to have a one-stop shop or a single portal to access your services?

We have talked a lot about the complicated landscape. Your role and the role of your office is the newest but also probably the most specific and the narrowest of these bodies. Would it be right to say that that is largely as a result of changes to technology and evidence-gathering methods? As we look ahead to the future of the landscape, we can imagine that new technologies, such as AI—goodness knows what else is ahead of us—might require other bits of data protection, better good practice by police and so on. If we are imagining a robust shape for this landscape such that, in the future, other things are required, do you imagine that something like that could be incorporated within your office? Would there be other commissioners? How do we make your function—or the role that you play in the wider landscape—robust in relation to future technological advance?

Obviously, the committee has been convened because of the complicated landscape. I absolutely accept your remarks that the wider picture is relevant. We have discussed that point and it might form part of our recommendations. However, we have a very limited remit and timeframe, and we have resources for a very specific bit of work.

You alluded briefly to, I think, the UK model, in which the freedom of information functions are within wider information commissioner functions. Are there other international models to consider? I understand what you said about the uniqueness of your role, and I totally get the point about the independence that is required. I am thinking in terms of structure and what we could do in a perfect world, if we were starting from somewhere other than where we are. Is there a model that has been shown to work in other countries, or does the role always need to be completely separate from other public bodies, for reasons of trust?

In my final question, I will take a slightly different approach. Some other witnesses, to whom the committee spoke about ethical standards and ombudsmen, talked about the fact that, because they interact with the broader public, it is not always clear to a member of the public who has a frustration—whether it relates to their GP, the Parliament or a member of their local council—whom to go to. Those witnesses talked about creating a one-stop shop—a website or portal, for example—where a person could enter their problem, then, behind the scenes, the one-stop shop would direct them to the public trust body that would most likely be able to help them. Could your office participate in something like that? Would that help the public who use your services or would that not be relevant to you?

I am interested in following up on something that you said. I completely understand your cautioning us against lumping together all the SPCB supported bodies. One way to look at the landscape is that some have a public trust role and others primarily have an advocacy role. Clearly, the role of the Scottish Information Commissioner, along with the role of the ombudsman, is really important for public trust. Some of the other witnesses that we have heard from talked about the importance for their role of the separation between an investigative role and an adjudication role. It sounds as though you do both investigation and adjudication. Will you outline those aspects and why they are particularly important to your role?

Thank you.

Colin Borland, that question was not put directly to you, but do you have any thoughts, before I move on?