Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is helpful. You felt that changing those provisions in other legislation was out of scope for this bill, as it would have widened it beyond your interest.

I think that the Faculty of Advocates was saying in its submission that, after someone is appointed, there could be a dispute about how they are carrying out their functions and that, in those circumstances, it might be helpful for that individual to be able to go back to the court and seek clarification that what they are doing is in order and consistent with the powers that they were appointed to use.

That was helpful. There are provisions for appointing judicial factors in other legislation. The commission has looked at those, and it is broadly happy with them. Is that correct? Obviously, the bill would have been a chance to change those provisions.

I think that it would probably be in section 19, but that would be up to drafting colleagues—and probably in section 17—

The committee can take that up with the faculty. We are likely to hear from it; we could send you further details and then you could comment.

That is helpful. Thank you.

Would it be easy to set out in legislation what that meant, or would that be a difficult task?

I am sorry; I meant to say section 17. I apologise that I had the wrong section.

Thank you, convener. I want to place on the record that I remain strongly opposed to the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021. I think that the legislation undermines free speech and I believe that it should not be subject to commencement when serious concerns remain about how it will be policed in practice.

To be honest, I am appalled by that answer. I understand why the report was commissioned, but I do not think that it is consistent with what the then Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills said as the bill went through Parliament. I was on and off the Education and Skills Committee throughout that time. He acknowledged that it was unlikely that documentary evidence would be available in every circumstance. He did not talk about certainty; he talked about the balance of probabilities. He offered repeated reassurances that people would be believed and that the principle would be that, where survivors came forward and offered testimony, it would be taken as fact, not that it would be questioned.

The second thing that I find pretty hard to swallow, given that it was discussed during the passage of the bill, is the relationship between parents and the local authority that has been presented. It is not true; it was not factually correct then and it is still not correct to this day. Local authorities, through social work and education, wield a huge amount of authority over families. When they suggest things and direct things, vulnerable families feel under pressure to accept them. It is not a relationship of equals and it is wrong to categorise it in that way. Given what we hear from survivors, I had hoped that we would be looking to find a way to say yes rather than finding reasons to say no.

I am interested in what the Deputy First Minister has to say on the commitments that were given through the bill and on the relationship between parents and local authorities that she has set out. Even now in 2024, that is not my experience of what it is like for many families in my constituency.