Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is all right.

I appreciate that frank and honest reply. That is the same with a lot of situations. There is often low public awareness about politicians and the Parliament. It is good to hear an honest response about that.

I was going to ask about the national panel but you have gone on to answer that, which is great. I was going to ask in particular about the Gypsy Traveller community, but you have given some details. In the interests of time, I will not go back over that, but are there any other groups that the national panel has particularly focused on?

I welcome the work on the Gypsy Traveller community. I was on the Equalities and Human Rights Committee in the previous parliamentary session, when a lot of work was done on that. Alexander Stewart was on that committee, too.

I have a question on the perception of the panel. We have heard evidence that the panel can often feel one-sided. We were told:

“It is not a two-way process; it is not a dialogue or a conversation. It simply involves answering a survey.”—[Official Report, Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, 3 December 2024; c 31.]

What would you say to that? Do you take on board that criticism? If so, do you have any plans to address it?

Thank you.

Good morning to both of our witnesses, and thanks for the evidence so far. I want to ask about the public’s level of awareness of the regulator. The committee heard some evidence that, unless you are a tenant or another service user who is involved with a landlord, there is likely to be a low level of awareness among the public. Do you accept that, or do you have a different view on it?

You have asked my question to Michael Cameron, which is great.

To go back to Rona Mackay’s question, is it such a bad thing? Could such a set-up have really negative consequences, or could it work and be a fair justice system? Do you know what I am getting at?

You said something earlier, Simon, about the comparison of the conviction rates in Scotland and England. In England, there is a “better”—I put that in inverted commas—conviction rate. Is there a risk of Scotland’s not having a similar rate? Could having unanimity lead to more convictions and alleviate the concerns of victims organisations?

My question is a wee bit different. I probably did not explain it right. The complainer should have a choice as to whether to give evidence in court or not, but do you ever come across a situation where a complainer would prefer to give pre-recorded evidence or evidence on commission—in this example, it would probably be pre-recorded evidence—but feel that they are more likely to be believed, for want of a better term, if they do it in court? My question was more about that. If that is an issue—we do not want to go back to the stage 1 evidence, as the convener will probably remind me, so I link the question to today’s discussion—could an amendment be lodged to address that?