Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is very helpful. Something that Euan McCulloch said that stood out to me was that there is a relatively low bar for cases to be progressed. You seem to have massive challenges with appeals in which people have not given their full names, which prevents a number of appeals from progressing. If someone cannot comply with those requirements, the case does not go forward. Do you have any concerns about that? I do not know whether you demand the full name—or just any name—but does that cause problems?

I go back to the commissioner’s comments about just asking sometimes.

Ruth Maguire has a follow-up question.

That is probably the finest defence that I have heard in a long time of a little human intervention at the right moment, before you press send on your computer. Interestingly, we will have another commissioner in front of us next week, and we will discuss a not dissimilar issue. People recognise that a really important discussion needs to happen on AI, and I think that we need to start having discussions about ethical use and so on sooner rather than later.

I thank you and your staff, who support you, for the annual report and for the evidence that you have given. If anything comes to mind afterwards, you know where to find us—at least for the next few weeks—or those who will follow us in the future. Given that this is probably the last time that I will have a chance to speak to you in this parliamentary session, I thank your office and you personally for your work as Scottish Information Commissioner. Thank you for the openness with which you have confronted the challenges that we have placed on you and for giving us the answers that we need.

We will now move into private session to consider the evidence that we have heard.

10:12

Meeting continued in private until 10:28.

In essence, you end up having an annual—sometimes more frequent—argument about needing more resource. Is that because the model that is used to calculate the resource is wrong and we should look at it again, or is there a way that we could anticipate increasing needs? As you say, those are hard to identify, but you have mentioned a number of factors in relation to which resource is becoming a challenge. From your point of view, do we need to look at the resourcing model?

There are two levels to John Mason’s question. Generally with regard to post-legislative scrutiny, doing it too early is a waste because you have no idea how the legislation is being implemented. The second part is the challenge that we face with this bill, which is that there is an agreement to keep the Promise by 2030. If we head down the wrong road, even by accident, we will use up vital time that we need.

The time limits are important. They are driven by the deadline for the Promise—such deadlines do not necessarily exist in other legislation, but the deadline is incredibly important when it comes to the bill. Therefore, we must articulate the reviews with that in mind. It would be pointless to have a review in 2035, as it then might be, horrendously, an autopsy rather than a review.

There are pressures, which I think are reflected in all the amendments in the group. I am interested to hear from the minister and other members about where we can properly land so that the Promise can be kept at the forefront of people’s minds, as it absolutely must be, and so that, if errors or omissions occur, we have the opportunity to identify them early and rectify them before 2030.

I move amendment 218.

Good morning. I remind those in the room and those watching of my declaration of interests.

I do not intend to speak for too long on this group, because Miles Briggs has introduced it exceptionally well. It is about ensuring the best for individual children for whom family group decision making can make a transformative change. I have lodged amendment 208A, which seeks to add to amendment 208, on consideration of whether family group decision making is offered. The extension would require the reporter to consider that in appropriate cases.

Amendment 210A seeks to add specificity to the reports that would be produced under amendment 210, in the name of Miles Briggs, which I support.

We have an opportunity here to bring into the bill something that should have been there from the outset. Since the Promise was originally made, family group decision making has been seen as a way of ensuring the best environment in which to not only discuss challenges and promises, but find solutions.

Like Miles Briggs, I welcome the Scottish Government’s move to see where we are on that, but I think that it will be a crucial, important and timely intervention in the bill’s progress, which will assist. I will leave it at that.

Again, we find ourselves in an interesting position in which we are invited not to put in the bill something that we recognise as important. My amendment 218 would require the Scottish Parliament to review the act. Of course, any committee of the Parliament has an innate right to investigate anything within its remit that it wants to. However, the purpose behind the amendment is to mark the importance of the issue. I am always cautious of the dangers of binding a future Parliament—I agree with Ross Greer on that—but I am more than happy to bind a future Government.

The minister is right that there are two aspects. There is an overarching responsibility relating to how the bill is progressing, but there is also an obligation, through post-legislative scrutiny, to drill down into what is happening with a piece of legislation and to consider whether it is operating as the Parliament envisaged when it was passed, or whether unknown unknowns or known unknowns have come into view.

To be fair, all the amendments in the group articulate a review of the bill. The minister rightly has concerns with regard to amendments 219 and 220, because they would overlap with reviews that are being considered or other elements that will be looked at. However, it is important to have a review because, as we have heard, there are areas in which the bill has not yet envisaged reviews taking place and that the minister would like to happen.

Albeit that my amendment 218 would place a burden on the Scottish Parliament, the advantage is that it would place a duty on others to instigate the review. The questions that the members of the committee that would do that would ask themselves are articulated at a very high level in the amendment, which would allow that committee to scrutinise as it wishes to do.

That intervention is incredibly helpful. If amendments 219 and 220 appear in the bill at stage 2, that will allow progress towards what I hope will be a cross-Parliament agreement on post-legislative scrutiny.

With that, I seek to withdraw my amendment 218.

Amendment 218, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 219 moved—[Ross Greer].

I am not being in any way disrespectful to Police Scotland, but is the challenge not that it will always be easiest for a provider to continue with an existing process? The amendment suggests that we shift the argument to say, in effect, that a police station should become the last resort, and that every other option should be considered first. I think that that needs to happen. I accept the minister’s articulate discussion of the issue and I note that the group that she mentioned is meeting, but is this not fundamentally about flipping the question over and challenging Police Scotland on why it could not facilitate the use of, for example, a hospital or a house? I realise that weekends and evenings will be difficult times, but if we agree that the use of a police station should be the exception rather than the rule, how long does the minister envisage that it will take to reach that position?