Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have a brief supplementary question on COP26 funding. You have made it clear that there is a good process in place for recouping the direct costs of COP26, and the committee has heard that from the police, too. I give credit to the UK Government and the Scottish Government for working together on that. However, in a previous session, an issue was raised about the unknown and longer-term consequences of COP26. Is there an arrangement in place for those? One issue that springs to mind is that there could be an impact on staff when the supporting officers from the rest of the UK return to their divisions. Another issue is that, because we have hosted the summit, there might be renewed activism in the country. Obviously, that is a good thing and we all want it, but it might result in extra pressures on policing. That sort of thing might have an impact for the next few years. Will the discussions on the issue be on-going, and will they incorporate that point?

I have been reassured.

Thank you, convener. I will try to be brief.

Cabinet secretary, you said in response to Katy Clark that you predict that we will need more investment in community services. I welcome that. You are right. Will you expand on the current Government thinking on that? There has already been an uplift but do you envisage a greater one? How might it link into some of the other policy areas that you talked about, such as the use of remand and reducing the prison population?

I agree with much of what you have said. However, I often think that the issue of what victims want, and comments about tough and soft justice, are a discussion that is had at political level rather than on the ground.

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests. As a criminal justice social worker for years, my experience was that, primarily, victims wanted the offence not to be repeated on somebody else, particularly if it was a less serious offence. In all those years, I did not come across a lot of people who were demanding and shouting for prison sentences. People wanted good outcomes for the whole community.

Will you be looking at the pandemic’s implications for the budgeting for community sentences? I recently spoke to some ex-colleagues who said that there has been a real shift in how community payback orders are being delivered. I am sure that the Government will pick up on that. I see that Neil Rennick is nodding, so he has obviously heard about this. People are no longer able to come into offices as easily, or are saying, “I can’t go into the office, because I want to protect myself from Covid”, which is fair enough. That is putting extra demand on services. Will that be taken into account as we try to deliver good and effective community sentences that the public and victims can have faith in?

My colleague Collette Stevenson has probably covered my question because it is in the same area.

If 20 people in that age group were moved into secure care, it strikes me that there would be a budget implication—in a positive sense—for the prison service. It would also be positive that those young people would be in secure care. Is that something that you would consider in relation to that budget, or would it stay with Polmont because it is currently a Polmont budget?

I apologise for my question being similar to Collette Stevenson’s question.

Good morning. I welcome the Lord Advocate to her new position.

I know that post mortems have been a topical issue for you, with issues with the toxicology departments causing significant delays. There has also been a more recent surge, because of an increase in deaths. Have the toxicology issues been resolved? Moreover, is the current budget sufficient to ensure that post mortems can continue to be carried out as fast as possible?

It was helpful to get that on the record.

Good morning. As others have said, the evidence that the witnesses have given today has been extraordinarily powerful. I echo Pam Duncan-Glancy’s comments about signing the petition during the election campaign. I also signed it and remain committed to the campaign. The testimony today has only strengthened my view.

The questions that I was going to ask have been covered by the intensity and depth of the responses, so I will ask two broad questions. First, where should the ban on conversion therapy be focused? I think that you have all talked about that, but it would be useful to get your comments on the record. Should the focus be on private settings such as the home and religious settings, or should the ban be focused on any other places?

Good morning. Just like the convener, I want to say that I am supportive of the statement of reasons. I also wish to say that I signed the bill in the previous session, before we finished up. While there could have been advantages to having further consultation to get more information, we probably have enough information from the original consultation and within our own work.

I am working with a number of families from my constituency, who have come together. They have children and young people in the very age group that we are talking about, who have complex additional support needs and who are finding it very difficult to access support in leaving school and making the transition. If the proposed bill goes ahead and comes before the Parliament, I would like to get those people and their voices involved, and I would do that through my role as their MSP and representative. I think that further support is needed there.

I am happy to say at this stage that I agree with the statement of reasons that Pam Duncan-Glancy has put forward. I do not have any specific questions at this point; I just wanted to put those views on the record.

I thank the panel members for those responses. I will not ask my original second question, which was for the witnesses to discuss their experiences of supporting people who have been through conversion therapy, as that has been done by each of them at great length, and I am sure that that will come up again as we go through the rest of the evidence session.

Another question has come to my mind, however, if you do not mind me asking it, convener. This has grown in my mind as we have been taking evidence, and it has just been referred to. Much of the time, what we are talking about is children experiencing conversion therapy. We are talking about the possibility of introducing legislation to end conversion therapy in Scotland. Do panel members have any ideas or thoughts about how such legislation might have to interact with existing child protection legislation and procedures? I ask that from a background of having previously been a children and families social worker for eight years and having thought about the grounds of referral to the reporter and child protection procedures. Do panel members think that there is any overlap here, in that such legislation would need to be incorporated into existing legislation, including that to protect children?

I am sorry for the length of the question.