Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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?