Chamber and committees

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?

I have one final question. I appreciate that the question is as much for the member in charge of the bill as it is for you. In fairness, I will ask it to the member in charge next week, if somebody else does not do so beforehand. What discussions have the Government and the member in charge had as the bill has progressed or in its earlier stages? Have there been any discussions at that level to try to square the circle, as I mentioned earlier?

Thank you, minister; that is reassuring. One of the concerns that I have is that we continue to go back over this area again and again. We have heard from those with lived experience on both sides of the argument that they are tired of having to continually come in, speak to politicians and defend their position one way or the other, whether they want to continue to have the right to sex work or whether they are against it and they want to see the bill passed. I am therefore concerned that a new approach might feel like starting again.

It is probably too early to ask, because we are at stage 1 and you have a neutral position, but how confident are you that the Government could take this forward—in other words, safely criminalise the buying of sex without continually having to revisit the issue—in a new parliamentary session? Has that crossed your mind?

I move on to my more substantive question. In your submission, you said that a resource increase is needed to meet

“Additional costs to support the implementation of the FAI Taskforce recommendations.”

Could you set out what that resource requirement is and what it covers, and the implications with regard to deaths in custody if you do not have the budget to implement those recommendations?

Could you provide the committee with those costs in writing?