Seòmar agus comataidhean

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

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?

You touched on the fact that you are still going through the responses to the consultation, but I wonder whether you could outline some areas a wee bit. As one of the members who helped take the bill through in the previous session—it was a really good bill that I know you were proud of, as well—I remember that the committee discussed who welfare reporters would be. Could you expand on that and, perhaps, on issues around contact management in contact centres when domestic violence is in play, if those two matters are coming up in the consultation?

Yes. Thank you.

Is it therefore difficult to put a figure on it? As politicians, we sometimes look for figures, but I can understand how difficult that would be, given the situation.

I will move on to the main theme of my questions. As I said, I supported the campaign, and I probably made my position reasonably clear, but part of my job as an MSP in the committee is to scrutinise so that we can ensure that anything that the Parliament does is as good as it can be. Therefore, I want to ask some questions that might be in the more difficult bracket, if that makes sense.

I want to hear your views on the idea that some people might wish to seek support for what they might perceive as their discomfort with being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. Tristan Gray referred to that, but please elaborate on it. On that basis, is it possible to have consent to any of these practices by organisations, where someone is not coerced but is seeking that therapy, for want of a better word? I ask that with the caveat of my comments at the start of my question.

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?

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.