Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is a robust response. When you said that a person cannot consent to torture, that was really strong. It might be the quote of the meeting.

A constituent asked me to ask my next question, which is in the same vein. What account have you taken of individuals who have detransitioned, or who might do so, and who change their gender identity?

I mentioned earlier that I had a supplementary question—it is on the issue of coercive control and relates to a constituency case that I am dealing with.

In the previous parliamentary session, the Justice Committee dealt with a very good piece of legislation to outlaw coercive control. My constituent has given me details about her experience of quite horrendous coercive control through the civil court system. I am dealing with that situation as her MSP, and I know that the issue is not one for the committee. However, I committed to asking today, under this question theme, whether the Government has any thoughts about strengthening that area in a way that would almost take a parallel approach to the criminal justice approach that we now have. I know from previous discussions that some safeguards are already in place, but people such as my constituent are continuing to be exploited, if I may put it that way, through the system.

You might not be able to comment on that today, minister, and I would have given you prior notice of the question had the query to me not been so recent. However, I wonder whether that is in the Government’s thoughts, given the change in the criminal law.

It does not seem so long ago that you were at the previous session’s Justice Committee discussing the Children (Scotland) Bill. I have a couple of questions about that legislation. What key issues has the Government identified in relation to statutory regulation of child contact centres and child welfare reporters? Can you outline when the committee can expect the secondary legislation on those topics?

Thank you, Blair, for sharing your personal experiences, because it is always helpful to the committee to hear that.

As a sort of declaration of interest, I say that I was one of the MSPs who signed the pledge during the election campaign, and I was pleased, having signed that pledge, to be returned by the electorate.

To go back to an earlier question, what is your understanding of the prevalence of conversion therapy in Scotland? You touched on that in earlier answers and in your opening statement, but can you expand a wee bit on what the prevalence is now and what it has been over the past five to 10 years?

That is me finished on that subject, convener. I have a supplementary on a later subject, if you can bring me in on that.

Thank you for that assurance, cabinet secretary.

I want to go back to Russell Findlay’s point about the unpaid work component of community payback orders. This is more of a comment than a question, but I think that it is relevant to the discussion. The cabinet secretary has already touched on this, but I think that, regardless of what we do with the legislation and regardless of whether it is still required—and I accept that it might not be—I am concerned about that particular service completely returning to normal. I do not know about other areas, but the rate of Covid is extremely high in Lanarkshire just now, and that kind of unpaid work, by its very nature, requires the use of small buses and vans for it to work. There is a real risk of Covid in that respect.

I do not expect you to comment on that, cabinet secretary, because you have already touched on it briefly, but I just wanted to point out that that is a consideration with regard to that disposal.

I want to pick up on the point that Jamie Greene made about remand. I was impressed with your candid response, cabinet secretary, and I look forward to what is said about remand in the programme for government, because it strikes me that we cannot have people on remand for longer than they need to be. That is particularly the case for people who are, in the end, deemed to be innocent. Being on remand in such a situation can be a traumatic experience, and that might raise further questions.

I know that you cannot comment on the programme for government, but I wonder whether it might contain something about other ways of dealing with remand. For example, if the individual is on remand because they are deemed to present a danger, will consideration be given to other ways of dealing with that, perhaps through the use of criminal justice resources in the community?

That is excellent, thank you. My main question in this area, cabinet secretary, is about some of the stuff that has been postponed or delayed because of Covid-19. That is a natural thing, and it has happened across the world. You will have received a letter—I will not give my constituent’s details just now—about a difficult case that I am dealing with. It relates to a historical sexual abuse case that has been delayed several times. I know from my experience of working in criminal justice and in child protection in social work that, even pre-pandemic, such delay was not uncommon. However, the case has gone on for a significantly long time. Are you able to comment more generally on such cases? Will the Government prioritise them? Some of the information—which I accept might not be fully accurate—that the family and their legal representatives are getting is that the delays are not just about the details of the case, which would be more acceptable, but are Covid related. That is causing great distress to my constituents, as you can imagine.

Without commenting on anything specific—if you have already read the letter—can you comment more on such historical child abuse cases, in which the individual is now an adult? Are those cases being prioritised in the Covid recovery?

Apologies, cabinet secretary—I will reframe the question. I felt that it was quite a helpful question, but I probably did not articulate it very well to you.

That particular case—again, I will not go into it—meets the priority criteria that were originally set out by the Government and the courts, because, as well as being historical, it has a current element. The family and others who are involved have been quite surprised to hear the impact of Covid being cited as a reason for the continuing delay, because there were assurances at the start that that would not be the case. To put my question in another way, therefore, I seek any assurance that you can give—it does not need to be an answer just now—that you will look into whether priority has, indeed, been given to such cases during Covid. For example, is that case a one-off, or might what has been said about it not even be fully accurate? Has priority been given to the cases that, as you have both rightly outlined, were going to be given priority? I suppose that that is a more helpful way of asking that question.

Thanks, cabinet secretary. Convener, I have two other questions but they are not related to this area, so I do not know how you want to take them.