³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

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.

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?

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.

Perfect. Thank you.

First, I should declare an interest as a registered social worker, as I want to ask about community justice, which we have already touched on.

From my experience of working in that field—and from my contact with many people who are still in it—I know that, under the Scottish Government, there has been significant funding for community justice, which is only right if we are going to meet the aims of reducing prison sentences and rehabilitating those who are involved in the justice system. Given the Covid situation, is there likely to be any further increase in investment in community justice services? I accept that you might not be able to talk about that if it is going to be mentioned in the programme for government, cabinet secretary, but given all the different aspects that have been discussed today—youth justice, the possible return of unpaid work, the rehabilitation of offenders and perhaps some work on remand and the bail supervision that Neil Rennick mentioned—I was just wondering whether there will be a further increase in funding. Indeed, I ask the question as a former criminal justice social worker who saw his team grow rapidly under a Scottish National Party Government.