Profile: Laura Irvine

Could you tell us about your career so far?

I trained in a criminal defence firm, following which I started working in the public sector for the SCCRC and then COPFS, which included a secondment to the Scottish Government dealing with devolution issues. During this time, I completed a master’s in human rights law. I then moved into private practice where I was mainly a regulatory lawyer, but I did some public law, including some data protection law work. Then in 2013, I was involved in an appeal to the Information Rights Tribunal which ended up with an ICO fine for a data breach being overturned. This was a very high profile case and was my main introduction to data protection law. I have not looked back. 

What are the main current concerns of the Privacy Law Subcommittee?

To summarise, here are some of the main items we are looking at: the Data Protection and Digital Information (No 2) Bill; post-Brexit reforms, automated decision-making and AI technologies that use personal data; and freedom of information in Scotland and the proposed extension of the organisations which will be subject to FOISA. This includes the Law Society of Scotland and also organisations that are receiving public funding. Although the committee all agree that the principle of transparency as to the spending of public money is important, there are some who are also concerned about the disproportionate impact that this extension would have on some organisations.  

What has been a highlight for you as convener?

Giving evidence to the Westminster Public Bills Committee was a highlight, a privilege and terrifying. The committee responded to the consultation in relation to proposed changes to the second version of the Data Protection Bill, which will change some aspects of the GDPR, a significant piece of legislation brought in when the UK was in the EU. As data protection is a reserved matter, the UK Parliament is considering this bill and I understand that it is quite unusual for the Law Society of Scotland to be asked to give evidence in Westminster. I gave evidence on the same day as the Information Commissioner, esteemed academics, and experienced lawyers in this field – hence my intimidation. The hearing was also televised and is available to watch. However, the questions from the committee members were based on the response we had provided so I was able to respond to them all effectively on the day. 

AI has been featured several times in the Journal and is a hot topic in many sectors: is it something you see impacting the legal sector quite drastically? 

The use of AI has so much potential to benefit society, but when it impacts individuals’ lives, and often it uses personal data to do that, its implementation has to be thought about very carefully, and the safeguards in place under the GDPR must be adhered to so that individuals are protected from decisions made by computers alone.

Generative AI tools, such as ChatGPT, stole the public’s attention this year, but that sort of technology is a really just a small part of the changes that AI is bringing to society.  

What are the main issues that you think the Society should be addressing at the moment?

Diversity and inclusion are a challenge for the profession and an area where the Society is doing a lot of work. 

Mental wellbeing and addressing stress and burnout need to continue to be a focus for the Society, to encourage the profession to take care of itself.  

It is agreed that the regulation of the profession needs updated, but there are concerning issues about maintaining the independence of the profession and keeping it free from political interference. The Society has done a lot of very good work highlighting these issues. 

Finally, what keeps you busy outside of work?

I run, cycle, and try to keep generally fit and spend time with my family by encouraging them to join in. I have also taken up sewing again to ensure that my creative side is satisfied.