Seòmar agus comataidhean

Before I go to colleagues, I want to pick up on a couple of points.

You talked about how you are not necessarily familiar with the work of other commissioners, which is fully understandable, but it is clear from your earlier remarks just how comprehensive your role is. I think that you said that it goes from GPs all the way up to the Scottish Government and across the public sector. Do you want to say a bit more about that? It is different from the work of some other bodies.

You also talked about the big picture and the whole system. Thank you for citing the example of third sector funding in that regard. As we look at what we have been tasked with in respect of SPCB supported bodies, do we need to see that in the context of all the other commissioners and public bodies that provide similar functions but are funded by the Scottish Government, rather than by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body?

In your written submission, you say:

“From a functional perspective, I think I stand both alone in the public sector landscape and alone in the Commissioner landscape.”

The rest of the paragraph elaborates on that first sentence, but it captures the point that you are trying to emphasise. Do you want to say more about that?

That is very helpful. All your evidence today has been helpful, as has your written submission.

I thank both of you for attending, for your contributions and for your time. Next week, the committee will hear from the Scottish Human Rights Commission and the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland.

That concludes the public part of our meeting. As previously agreed, we now move into private session to consider today’s evidence.

As colleagues do not have any further questions, I will ask one last question. It is quite broad, but it is an important one.

You talked—quite rightly—about the need for organisations to ensure that they have resource for responding to freedom of information requests. I know from my experience how much time is taken up in responding to the important right to freedom of information. However, in recent weeks, there has been some discussion in the public and parliamentary domains about portfolio questions perhaps being overused and, arguably, irresponsibly used. Do you want to say anything about the responsible use of and engagement with freedom of information by parliamentarians, journalists and the general public, and about the impact of requests on your resources and those of other bodies?

If you have nothing to say, that is fine. I appreciate that that is a broad question, but I thought that it was relevant in the wider context of prudence.

Welcome back. I am pleased to welcome to the committee Dr Brian Plastow, who is the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner, and Ross MacDonald, who is the director of the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner’s office. Thank you for joining us, for your written submission and for your time.

We move directly to questions. As with other witnesses in recent weeks, the first question is from me. I would be grateful if you would set out what you consider to be the purpose of the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner and how that differs from the role of ministers, MSPs and other bodies that exist for the public and common good of Scotland.

It does. It is also helpful context for the questions that colleagues will now put to you.

On that matter, the six key recommendations in your written submission were interesting and helpful. The last one is that

“Scottish Ministers and the Parliament should review the functions of all SPCB supported bodies every 5 years”.

Do you want to say a bit more about that? It is an interesting suggestion.

That is really helpful, and I appreciate the candid way in which you put that forward.

I want to reflect on the evidence that you gave to the Criminal Justice Committee, which I sit on, and what you said in response to Lorna Slater about the different ways that biometrics are utilised and where and how they might be utilised in the future, in Scotland and internationally. You indicated to the Criminal Justice Committee that there might not be a necessity for your position in the future. For the record, do you want to say that again or to say a bit more about it, for the benefit of our committee?

I will ask about the review bodies. The bill provides for a review oversight committee and for case review panels to carry out the work involved in reviews. I would be grateful if you could outline the Scottish Government’s thinking in proposing that approach and the proposed membership of those bodies.

Section 11 and the schedule are quite specific about membership. Section 11 states that the review oversight committee must include

“representatives of voluntary organisations which provide services to individuals”.

However, it does not require that they have specific knowledge of domestic abuse. I am interested in any comment on that. The schedule discourages the appointment of people who are involved in victims organisations as chairs of the review oversight committee or case review panels. I am interested in fully appreciating the rationale for that.