Seòmar agus comataidhean

Before we move to Sue Webber’s questions, I want to pose a question about your current organisational structure. In the report, you say that you have “a team of 29 people.” One of the sub-notes mentions

“the absence of the Head of Corporate Services”—

we have talked about corporate governance—and it says that

“outstanding Management Assurance has been provided by the Corporate Services Manager.”

Are you confident that the system that is operating at the moment, in the absence of the head of corporate services, matches your current requirements?

You will be glad to know that we are coming to the end of the session.

Interestingly, that leads on to an issue that I wanted to mention: the section 60 code of practice. I note that that is a code rather than anything else. Earlier, you spoke about the Scottish Government’s engagement on that. We have also talked about the legislative challenges.

The section 60 code can be updated and it will, I hope, be updated. Do you see that as an answer, not to some of the legislative problems but to the cultural need to change understanding about FOI, which we have discussed? Am I putting too much emphasis on the code as a possible short-term answer to that? Will it be achievable in the near future?

I close the public part of the meeting.

I am certainly not going to comment on your choice of ChatGPT as an artificial intelligence platform. It is interesting that, as we contemplate having an environment of positive publication with regard to freedom of information, such AI tools will be able to provide a different nuance to information that currently is quite remote and to get beyond the point of people saying, “I have this—what’s next?”. Your comments on the specific barriers that young people face and the engagement that you are doing to break those down are massively important.

That takes me back to your undertaking to review the strategic plan after 12 months. You have discussed your approach of moving from promoting the idea of freedom of information to highlighting access to it. Is that the extent to which you are reviewing the strategic plan? Now that you have been working under it as it was presented to you, are you confident that it is fit for purpose? Does it reflect where the commission wants to see itself in 12 months’ time?

Following on from that, there is the perennial question of “How well is it going?” What are the early indications of success for the strategic plan and the proposals that it contains?

There has been a recent departure. If, once the new person comes in and is up and running, the staffing remains constant, May 2026 is still an achievable date for there to be no backlog.

That is helpful.

You talked about the FOI landscape, and you mentioned the legislative challenges. It may well be that, in due course, the Parliament chooses this committee to review the proposed member’s bill on FOI, so I do not want to go into too much depth on it. However, looking at the FOI landscape, are the legislative changes that you think are needed fundamental or are they about process? You have talked about the slippage in confidence around the world in our FOI system as the one to move towards, which it certainly was at the start. At a fairly high level, what changes would aid in making a better FOI landscape in Scotland and perhaps also improve our reputational position as a transparent and open place?

I look forward to further engagement on that if this committee has the pleasure of dealing with the bill.

Our next item of business is evidence from the Scottish Information Commissioner. I suspend the meeting to allow for his attendance.

Welcome back. Under agenda item 3, the committee will hear evidence from David Hamilton, the Scottish Information Commissioner, on the annual report and accounts for 2023-24. The commissioner is joined by Euan McCulloch, who is head of enforcement, and Claire Stephen, who is head of policy and information. David, I turn to you for some opening remarks, and then we will move on to questions.