It is a real and massive concern that individuals who are giving up their time and their talent to support an organisation are fearful that the culture of intimidation by and the behaviour of the regulator would stop them from continuing in their role or from wanting to stand up and be counted. They would prefer not to be counted—they are happy to stand up, but they do not want to be put in a position where they could be identified.

Patrick Gilbride gave us a clear description of the kind of behaviour that he has experienced in his role at director level in an organisation. The culture of fear is evident and requires to be addressed.

Does anyone else want to come in?

Good morning.

This morning, you have expressed some concerns about the culture and the robust approach of the regulator. The committee has received suggestions that bullying and intimidating behaviour by the regulator have occurred on occasion, especially when it was involved in the intervention process. Patrick Gilbride has given us a flavour of that. The regulator has come back to say that it has a robust attitude towards all that, and that it does not engage in intimidation and that that is not tolerated.

However, I am getting the feeling from some of you that that is perhaps not quite the case, and that you might have experienced some of that behaviour and culture. Do you agree that that kind of culture exists? If it does, how can that be improved?

Nobody denies the ambitions that are in place in this project. As you have all identified, the ability to make things happen will probably come down to cost and financial constraints. Museums and galleries provide a huge opportunity for individuals to see, understand and gain knowledge from the past. You have also talked about how you manage for the future.

We have heard from the sector that timings and processes have to change in order for it to survive, and that you are finding it difficult to recruit the next generation of individuals for the sector. How realistic are you about achieving, in the short term, some of the goals and ambitions that you wish to try to achieve? No one is denying that the process is there but, at the same time, there are obstacles in front of you even today, as we go into a budget process that we know will be difficult. I cannot see the sector fulfilling its ambitions in the short term, because of the financial constraints that it will find itself in.

Lucy, you have told us in the past about the difficulties that the sector is facing and the complexities of attracting investment, financial support and even individuals, who perceive that, if they join you, it will be for a short-term job and not a career, because of the financial constraints. It would be good to tease out some of that, because, yes, you want to try to identify and progress things, but if you are not in a position to do so, I do not know how you will fulfil some of your ambitions.

It is also about understanding the community link. There is a vast opportunity here to see how you can marry your ambitions for that process and the work that you can do in a community. It has already been identified that some communities will be much more receptive than others, so it is about trying to get the message across to the harder-to-reach communities. That is what you need to try to identify. We know where we are with culture in some areas, but it is about trying to ensure that the culture element is broad enough to go into the areas where it is more difficult to get that communication and understanding.

As I have said, the respondents to the survey indicated that they felt that there was a pressure to interpret empire and colonialism in a negative way. Individuals have concerns about the whole process. How do you respond to that, when you are trying to strike this balance and get the lessons learned?

I have a quick supplementary question. You have talked about the lessons learned and the balance required, but there was a bit of negativity in the survey that you talk about in your submission. It said that

“a ... number of respondents expressed frustration with a perceived pressure on museums to interpret all links with empire and colonialism in a negative way”.

As that is part of the equation, how do you respond to it?

I am delighted to close on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. As the Parliament has already heard, Scotland is truly facing a housing crisis, and the bill is badly needed. The legislation that the Government has introduced risks making the crisis in the sector even worse. For that reason, we will not support it at stage 1.

The problems with the bill should have been seen from a long way off. When the introduction of rent controls was first proposed in 2021, members on the Conservative benches were quick to warn about the problems to which it could lead. We highlighted the international example of Sweden, which has decade-long waiting lists for rent-controlled properties and a second-hand market of sub-let properties. The SNP created its own case study here, when rent control measures led to higher rent increases than in other parts of the United Kingdom.

However, regardless of those lessons and despite the end of the Bute house agreement, the SNP has ploughed on with its rent control policy. Unfortunately, the Government’s handling of the whole process has ensured that we are all in a worse situation. Once again, the Scottish Government is continuing its pattern of dealing with important policy decisions through secondary legislation. Last month, the Government finally released some detail about its proposals in a statement but, overall, that statement damaged confidence about housing in Scotland.

Today, members—even the convener of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee—talked about the lack of scrutiny through the process and the difficulties around and disappointment in the way in which the Scottish Government has handled it.

Meghan Gallacher spoke about the number of homeless individuals and the shame that we should feel. The housing emergency needs to be tackled. Rent controls will not improve the situation; they will make things worse. The bill will stifle investment and harm the industry and we should not introduce any legislation that does so. Even Mark Griffin spoke about the amendments that will be required at stage 2. The way in which housing is managed in Scotland needs to be dealt with.

Willie Rennie spoke about—

Thank you. Willie Rennie spoke about the increased demand and the failure to build. He mentioned that 72 per cent of local authorities said that the supply was shrinking and that Government policy was once again damaging the sector.

Jeremy Balfour spoke about homelessness and the whole crisis that has been created and mentioned that rent controls will continue to fail. The bill is so woefully short of detail and has made such difficulties that it will continue to cause problems. It might have been introduced with the right intentions, but it completely fails to deliver on the need to tackle Scotland’s housing emergency.

What we needed was a bold piece of legislation that would put the supply of new properties front and centre of the Government’s agenda. Instead, we have been left with framework legislation that aims to deliver damage to the sector.

As the bill proceeds through the next stages, I hope that the Scottish Government is finally able to learn from the mistakes of the past and listen to the stakeholders who are telling it that there are problems with the bill and to ditch this damaging plan, which will make Scotland’s housing crisis even worse. We should not be considering a bill that will make the crisis worse for communities the length and breadth of Scotland. When individuals and organisations are telling us that this is the wrong way to go, we should listen.

We have already touched on timescales and the length of the process. Adam Stachura talked about a timescale of four months and another of a year. In its submission, Age Scotland also commented on the length of time that the SPSO takes to consider a case, and on the backlog. We are aware of the backlog, which I am sure is getting bigger, depending on how many cases come through the system. That is frustrating for any individual. Their case will take a considerable length of time to progress and, even when it does progress, they do not necessarily get the result that they expect.

My question to all the witnesses is this: what impact does that have on the public trust in the whole complaints system? I can see that there is an impact, which may well be negative rather than positive. It would be good to get views on that. Perhaps Adam Stachura could start, given that Age Scotland put those comments in its submission.

The annual report sets out information on complaints. Only 4 per cent of complaints that were closed last year went through the SPSO’s full investigation stage. That is much lower than we have seen previously, when we compare it with seven or eight years ago. Is the SPSO fulfilling its functions if only a small number of complaints make it through to the full investigation stage?