Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you, convener, and good morning. I must apologise to the panel and all committee members for not being there in person. I am still struggling a bit with a cold.

Like Jamie Hepburn, I, too, have had some contact from local fire officers, and I put on record my thanks to them for coming to me on this matter. A lot of the things that they raised with me have already been covered by other members, but I want to ask a wee bit about your views on the consultation on the review. I have heard some criticism that the review was not clear and concise enough for people to think through the actual implications of the changes and that there was not a great level of engagement with local organisations, businesses and community groups. In fact, a lot of the publicity in that respect came through the SFRS’s Facebook page and social media channels. Do you have any comments on those thoughts—or criticisms, if you like—that have been put to me?

That is me now, convener—I have been unmuted.

I am happy enough with that response. Just for clarity, though, I should say that I was asking the question as it was put to me; I was not saying that this is for the FBU to take forward. However, I think that Colin Brown has answered that point, so thank you very much.

It is an exciting development, and I am sure that this committee and other committees across the Parliament will be interested in how the approach continues to develop.

You have been doing other work to improve access for those who are underrepresented in complaints statistics. One such group is female prisoners—we can understand why they might be a very underrepresented group. I am interested in how you are progressing work in that area, as well as in relation to people with disabilities. How do you handle complaints in those areas?

It is probably not about trying to drum up work—certainly not considering how busy you are and the nature of your work. That would not be appropriate. I am always interested to see how you make sure that folks in very underrepresented and disadvantaged groups know about the SPSO and how they can access it.

Good morning. I thank the witnesses for their evidence so far.

I have some questions about complaints-handling processes in local authorities and other bodies. The new child-friendly complaints process was launched across the public sector this year. Mr McFadden, I know that you have not been in your post for long, but are you able to give an assessment of the difference that the new approach has made? What difference would you like it to make over the coming years? Personally, I think that it is a really good initiative and that we should all be working with child-friendly processes. Have you had a chance to assess the early impact of the new approach?

As with the visits to prisons in the new year to find out what is going on, which Paul McFadden mentioned, it sounds like you are doing really great proactive work around the SIMD stuff. I appreciate hearing about that work, which, again is something that we would be interested in hearing updates on.

I have a final question. Earlier, Paul McFadden touched on adult social care provision and so on. Last year, we were told that relatives are often fearful of complaining about care provision because they think that it might impact relationships or that care might not be provided any more. MSPs and other elected members come across that issue quite a lot—it does not need to be the SPSO that people speak to; they come into our surgeries and say that they are worried about their relationship with the council, the health board or whatever. Have you managed to get any more insight into that? Is there anything more that you can do in that area to improve matters and put people’s minds at ease, because, as I said, the issue was raised with us last year, too.

Thank you very much. Before I pass back to the convener, I want to wish you and your team all the best, in case I do not come in with another question. I know that you are at the start of your tenure, and it sounds like you have many good ideas.

I thank the witnesses for their evidence so far. Quite a few of the issues that I was going to raise have already been covered, but I want to raise some of the concerns that we have heard from people who are currently involved in the sex trade. Sharon Dowey explored with you, and you brought up in your opening remarks, the issue about choice—people who choose to do it—and necessity. Does the bill take that into account? From the evidence that we have taken, we can almost distinguish between people who choose and make a decision to do it—who say that it is a good move for them—and those who are forced into it. If the bill were passed, what would be the implications for those who make that choice?

You heard the minister say last week that the Government is generally supportive of the general aims of the bill and what you are trying to achieve, but that it feels that this is a big and complex issue, with various different moving parts. What do you think of the notion that your bill is perhaps not the right place to do this just now but that a bigger piece of work needs to be done in the next parliamentary session to marry up all the different strands? Do you have a thought on that?

We also heard that people who are currently involved often feel that services—whether that be police, social work or health services—treat them pretty badly. They almost feel subhuman at times. From our evidence, there is a fear, as other members have expressed, that that situation would become worse if the bill was passed. What are your thoughts on that? Is there any evidence from other countries that would either back that up or disprove it?

Good morning. I think that I have spoken to most committee members already, but I apologise again for having had to move and join the meeting remotely.

Katy Clark started to explore this matter in relation to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. You probably saw last week’s evidence session, when the SFRS advised the committee that it had made a business case to expand the firefighter role, but that had not been funded by the Scottish Government. I think that there was an agreement that you were keen to look at that. Why was that decision made, and could it be reconsidered, given the persuasive case that the SFRS made for the expansion of the role?