³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

It was helpful to get that on the record.

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?

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.

I would completely echo the reverend’s point there. As a previous children and families social worker myself, I can testify that this is not something that we were trained on or asked about or something that we were consciously looking out for when dealing with individuals and families. The point has been very well made.

I have a broad question for the four people who have spoken to us about their lived experience. I really appreciate that; it is very helpful to the committee. I am a big believer in safe consumption rooms. We need to find a way to make them happen.

Given that we are the Criminal Justice Committee, my question is about something that you have all touched on already, which is the interaction with the various justice services within the committee’s remit. We will hear from many of those services later today.

How trauma informed are those services—criminal justice social work, the police, courts, prosecution services and so on—in their interactions with people who are using drugs? Is there a stigma in the agencies and organisations around drug users? Natalie Logan MacLean touched on that a wee bit. How can we get better at that?

I realise that that is quite a general question, convener, so I am happy for you to pick out who you think could answer it.

I will follow up on the COP26 stuff. When we were at the crime campus in Gartcosh a couple of weeks ago, we got a rundown of some of the plans for COP26. The scale of it is incredible, so fair play to the police for taking it on. I do not think that you will have to do anything as big again in a long time.

The chief constable said that he was keen for there to be no additional cost to Police Scotland. You talked about £60 million but, clearly, there will be an element of costs that we cannot currently predict, because we do not know how it will go or where there will be protests. Are you feeling reassured that there will be no cost to Police Scotland in the end? Do you have that assurance from the UK Government?

When will you have that discussion? I am asking because I cannot envisage a situation in which there will not be a long-term cost to the police in Scotland. Is there an assurance from the UK Government that the costs can be looked at in the longer term? I am sure you have all been through loads of these possibilities, but people will be working overtime for this massive event, so they will need time off after it, which might reduce services a wee bit. I am sure that it will not reduce core services, but people might also be off with stress—we just do not know. From what you said, I feel reassured that the UK Government will fund the costs that come out of the discussion that you are talking about having, but what about the knock-on effect over the next year or couple of years? I cannot see that we will not be affected by that, ultimately, because this is a massive event.