Seòmar agus comataidhean

Anybody who wants to come in on it—it is a broad enough question.

I am happy with that. My colleagues who are present in the committee room today have covered a lot of ground.

I thank the panel and—because I am participating remotely—committee colleagues.

Many of the main issues that we heard about in private and in other evidence sessions have been covered by colleagues. The answers have been pretty robust, as well as reflective and accepting of the fact that there are difficulties within the system for witnesses and victims. I put on record my appreciation of that.

Some of the evidence that we heard—this is particularly true of evidence that we heard in private—was, for want of another word, heartbreaking. The panel will know about that from the work of Lady Dorrian. When people tell us that the system retraumatises them and when some people—not all people, but some—tell us consistently that the system itself was worse than the initial offence that was committed, that is hard for everybody to hear.

I note what has been said today, and I know that you are only part of the system, but what else can be done to make sure that victims are taken through the process in the same way—as my colleague Jamie Greene said—that an accused would be? When it comes to your part of the system, how can we make sure that the people victims have contact with are trauma informed and are seen to be—if you like—on their side?

I also want to ask a more specific question that I do not think has been asked yet. What role can the barnahus play in helping witnesses who are vulnerable? It is not just child witnesses who are vulnerable; anybody who has experienced such offences is vulnerable.

Yes. Before we move on to answers from the other panel members on my question about key workers, I want to pick up on what I have heard as a constituency MSP, which panel members can maybe integrate into their answers.

Although childcare was available in the early days of the lockdown through the education system, it was not well taken up. A lot of people told me that that was because, at that point, we were dealing with a new virus that they were, quite rightly, very anxious about. Key workers, many of whom were women, were being told, “Yes, you can access this childcare”, which they felt put themselves and their families at risk because the virus was running rampant. I wonder whether the witnesses could take that into account, because there does not seem to be an awareness of the gender imbalance in that message.

Before I ask my question, I want to thank colleagues, the clerks and the witnesses for allowing me to participate online. The reason why I am doing so is relevant to the subject of today’s meeting, as it is in order to allow me to perform childcare functions this morning. However, I should say that, even as a dad who is trying to do a lot more childcare, I do only a fraction of what my partner, who is in the room next door, does with our three children. We need to be honest about such situations and reflect on it.

One member of the panel—I think that it was Eilidh Dickson—talked about the time when we all had an hour day to exercise. I more or less always used that hour for a walk, a run or a cycle, but my partner did not always do that, because we had two kids at that point—it was before the third came along. As men, we need to reflect on these things, too. Thank you, colleagues, for allowing me to say that.

My first question is about women key workers during the pandemic. We have talked a bit about the issue. Could the witnesses elaborate on how women key workers were affected, particularly if they had childcare responsibilities? Nurses, police officers, Royal Mail workers and so on had childcare responsibilities, but still had to work. Help with childcare was non-existent at that point. How were those workers impacted?

I am happy for you to choose the order in which the witnesses will answer, convener.

I thank the panellists for the really helpful information that they have provided this morning.

I have quite a broad-brush question about an issue that has already been touched on. When I talk to constituents, and even in the discussion that we are having this morning, I get the feeling that the digital courts system is working well for some people but not for others. I am sure that other members will have felt that, too. Perhaps a really good example is the vulnerable witnesses whom others have referred to. Some of those witnesses benefit a great deal from digital technology—for example, there might be a case involving an abusive relationship, and the technology means that the witness does not need to meet their abuser. However, there are other situations in which vulnerable witnesses seem to be more excluded from the justice system as a result of online and remote ways of working.

How do we get better at identifying cases in which, or individuals for whom, remote hearings will be beneficial and will provide more access to justice, and how do we identify individuals for whom that will not be the case? I know that we have touched on that already, but is there any work that the committee can do to help to establish, say, a framework in that respect?

I am happy for any of the witnesses to answer that, convener. I will leave that up to you.

Where is the threshold reached? Under international law, is it about the practice or about the impact and effects of the practice? A practice might not reach the international threshold, but somebody could tell us that the impact was that they felt degraded, and that might reach the threshold. Will you expand on that a wee bit? Is it about the practice or the impact on the individual?

My question is for Dr Ryan. I do not know if you listened to the first panel, Dr Ryan, but I put this question to those witnesses earlier and it has been broadly covered because of the nature of our conversation. We have heard a lot of evidence from individuals and organisations that have spoken about the harm caused by conversion therapy and have described it as a form of torture. We have also spoken a bit about consent. Is it possible to consent to something that could be described as torture?

We heard a slightly different view from the organisations that spoke to us today. Can you give your thoughts as a doctor on where conversion therapy sits? We heard some very harrowing tales from people about the impact that such therapy has had on them.

I am going to ask about consent, although it has been broadly covered already. First, though, I want to reflect on something. Although this evidence session has—as you said at the outset, convener—involved hearing from organisations that are raising concerns about possible legislation, from what I have heard so far, there is actually quite a lot of common ground in recognising conversion therapy or practice as detrimental and not something that we would want to do.

As I said, the subject of consent has been broadly covered, but it might be helpful if I ask the question directly and from another side. We have heard a lot of evidence about consent, both today and before, and we have heard that it is not possible to consent to conversion therapy, because it can be classified as torture.

Bearing that in mind, and given the discussion that we have had about consent, how do you rectify that, if you like, based on what you are saying? We have heard quite clearly that conversion therapy in any of its forms is torture, and a person cannot consent to torture. How does that play into what you are suggesting? I am happy for the witnesses to respond in any order.

I appreciate the question and I know that Bob Doris has been a supporter of social work and related services throughout his time as an MSP. We have spoken regularly about that. I know that the work that you do is linked very much with social work.

Towards the end of the previous parliamentary session, SASW held some hustings, which I attended on behalf of my party. All the political parties were represented. One of the asks at that hustings, because of the way that the discussion went, was about whether people would commit to the establishment of a cross-party group, should they be re-elected. I committed to that, as did others. That request for a cross-party group came after a full and lengthy discussion about where social work sits in the Parliament.

Bob Doris talked about self-directed support and the drug crisis and, as he said, different social workers would be involved in those areas. As I said in my opening statement, social workers have statutory powers in various areas including children and families, adult justice and adult social care, and it has been difficult to bring voices together.

Social workers have never really had a major voice in the committee structure. Social work organisations are invited to committees—I am a member of two committees that do that regularly. However, justice social workers come under the Criminal Justice Committee, of which I am a member; children and families social workers are more involved with the Education, Children and Young People Committee; and health and social care social workers are more involved with the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee. It has therefore been difficult to bring together a forum to represent the issues and dilemmas that social workers face—in particular, those that they have faced through the pandemic and as we build back from it. The cross-party group offers the opportunity to do that.

The two issues that Bob Doris mentioned will absolutely be at the forefront. SASW representatives are probably watching this meeting and hoping that the cross-party group will be approved, and they are probably already thinking about how those two issues can become future agenda items. All members, whether or not they are members of the group, would be welcome to come to any meeting.