���˿���

That is fair enough, but let me give you an example. I know that a couple of projects have been—let us say—dropped from the whole Ayrshire growth deal programme, but I only found out about that through the press. If the Scottish Government is funding these projects, is it not appropriate for some aspect of the Scottish Parliament democratic process to be involved? It is one thing to say, “Let’s have democratic oversight that’s as local as we can make it”, but it is another when substantial amounts of money are being put into these projects at Scottish and UK Government levels without any real participation from the members of this Parliament—or perhaps even the other one—in that decision-making process.

I want to go back to Fiona Collie, who talked about unpaid carers in answer to my first question. In your submission, you tell us that unpaid carers do not really have any meaningful access to resolution or redress through the ombudsman. Have I understood that correctly? For the benefit of the committee and the public, what is the position? If people feel that they need to raise an issue and take it to the ombudsman, do they have access?

Good morning, Professor Gill and Professor Mullen. I want to ask about the new obligations and duties that the ombudsman has taken on board or, rather, been given. You referred to it as

“considerable institutional experimentation, with the addition of the Scottish Welfare Fund jurisdiction”,

and being the national whistleblowing officer for the national health service. When that sort of thing happens, where does the ombudsman draw expertise from in order to take on board that widening scope of investigation?

Thanks for that answer. You are basically saying that there is no real noticeable impact, positive or otherwise, of the additional burdens on the ombudsman service. That is what I wanted to ask, but I think that you mentioned that in your response.

Turning to budgets and financing, your submission also indicated that we need to properly support and fund the ombudsman service to perform its role effectively. We know that and we know about the significant pressures on public finances at the moment. How does the ombudsman’s budget of £6.7 million a year compare with that of other ombudsmen services that you know of? Is that a sufficient level of funding for the service to carry out its duties, albeit that they have been expanded, as you mentioned a moment ago?

I will turn to the complaints model that was introduced in 2011. Since that time, the number of complaints has steadily risen. What is the evidence that the approach of bringing in that model has worked? Should we naturally expect the number of complaints to increase as a result of introducing a new model for complaints handling?

We might come to that a bit later on, Professor Gill. Thank you very much for answering those questions.

Good morning. Paul Blaker and Peter Stewart-Blacker have raised issues about who deals with complaints about the ombudsman service. I imagine that that question will inevitably find its way into our discussion as we take the inquiry further.

For the moment, however, I want to ask about the ombudsman’s annual report and the significant increase in complaints that the ombudsman received in 2023-24 compared to the previous year—the number is up 33 per cent. What are the reasons for that increase? What trends do we see? In what areas of public service are more complaints coming in? I would be much obliged if you would share your thoughts on any of those issues, please.

Thanks for that extra information. Is it not the same for everybody, though? If someone is unhappy with an outcome, they could press the button and go down the legal route and so on. What distinguishes the experience that carers might have as opposed to anyone else who raises a complaint and is unhappy with the outcome?

Thanks for that. I am sure that the committee will be keen to take that on board as we do more work on the issue.

Good morning, Derek—you are doing an absolutely magnificent job of explaining to the public in Scotland why the plant shouldnae shut and why it should continue. It all sounds to me like a rerun of the Gartcosh story in 1986 and the Ravenscraig story in 1992, in which a major strategic industry is removed from Scotland.

The explanations given now are basically the same as they were then, but this time the net zero transition is being held up as the main reason for this. Can you clarify where the refining capability will go during the transition? It is not stopping altogether. I imagine that it is being transferred elsewhere. Grangemouth could do 150,000 barrels a day, which is 54 million barrels a year. That demand will not just suddenly stop. Is that refining capability being transferred elsewhere during this so-called transition process? If that is the case, it is not a transition, it is an asset-stripping closure, is it not?