Seòmar agus comataidhean

I agree with you on that. I probably speak for my colleagues when I say that we are beginning to get a lot more constituent queries that are AI generated. As you said, they are just as relevant as if they had not been done with AI, because they are still constituents’ queries.

I have another quick question, which relates to one of the convener’s earlier ones. The convener asked about the committee’s request last year about gathering information relating to the sex or gender of complainers. I want to ask a wee bit more about that.

When you are looking at complaints—say, for example, there is one about councillor-on-councillor conduct—are you looking at whether patterns are emerging? For example, would you look at whether a councillor who is male is targeting female councillors in particular? Members of the Scottish Parliament know—and I am sure that you are aware, too—that politics is a difficult place for women. From having spoken to councillors in the past, I know that they feel that it can be a difficult environment. Do you and your team consider that when complaints come in and do you make assessments? Do you take quite a strict X, Y and Z approach or is that issue in your mind?

Thank you, convener. Good morning, Ian. My first question is about the super-complaint that you referenced in the annual report and in your opening statement. Obviously, you cannot give any personal information about it, but can you tell us a bit more about the super-complaint? What was the nature of it and what issues were involved?

What else would count as a super-complaint? That was a pretty good example, and I can see how it would come about. Should a flurry of complaints about, say, an individual councillor count, or would they be treated individually?

That brings me to my next question on the super-complaint, which is about the resource implications for your office. Are you saying that the resource implications for that particular super-complaint were not overly onerous?

You have already said that the majority of complaints received in 2024-25 were from members of the public. How many of those were admissible? Do you feel that there is perhaps a lack of knowledge or understanding among the public about the role and scope of the code?

Thanks, convener.

Thank you, convener, and good morning to the witnesses.

Thank you very much for the evidence so far. I want to ask for your views on the public awareness of the code. Do you think that there is a good public awareness, or do you feel that the large number of complaints that are deemed inadmissible suggests that there is not great awareness? What are your thoughts on that?

One difficulty that we have is that many members of the general public may not be aware of the code or how to make a complaint until they feel that they need to—and that could happen quite suddenly. That might be part of the issue as well.

Suzanne, in your opening remarks, you mentioned an issue about scrutinising decisions that I thought was very interesting. I know that there was some media coverage about councillors feeling that they could not scrutinise officers because of the code. Could we talk a bit more about that? Where do you think the line is between scrutinising officer decisions robustly and that becoming criticism? I have been a councillor, and now that I am an MSP I am in same situation in the context of scrutinising the Government. Sometimes it can be a fine line. Do you have thoughts on that? What advice has been given to councillors?

In some situations, it is obvious that a councillor is just being critical and is crossing a line, or it might be obvious that they are just doing their job of scrutinising. However, is there sometimes a grey area where it is down to people’s perceptions on whether they are being criticised and somebody is being too critical? Does that make sense?

Good morning, minister. As others have noted, you have said that you agree with the principle in the bill of criminalising the buying of sex and that you do not agree with the quashing of offences, which are two of the main aspects of the bill. The bill partly meets the Government’s position, but you have concerns, which you have outlined. My question is quite a general one. How do we square that circle, and is there anything that the committee can do to help?

What I am trying to ask, if I can be blunt, is whether you and the Government are open to suggestions that the committee will come up with in the stage 1 report on a cross-party basis. I emphasise that it would be on a cross-party basis, because I feel that this is very much a non-party-political issue. Is that something that the Government is open to?

Before I ask a question about fatal accident inquiries, I will ask about the social care aspect, which you have spoken about and which I am really interested in. That is changing the whole shape of prison care. Do you have any idea what share of the costs of social care is being incurred by the Scottish Prison Service and how much is falling on the NHS? Is there any overlap? If so, can anything be done in that regard?