Chamber and committees

I thank you for what you have said so far, Ewan. Can you say a bit more about how the SRC, and the businesses that you support and work with, see the changing nature of the high street?

Before the pandemic, we saw significant moves around local identity and place making on the high street. You talked about protecting the high street and encouraging consumers back in. What should we be doing to support and encourage local businesses such as retailers to generate places where people want to be? Getting consumers back on the high street is about not only financial incentives, but place making. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the changing nature of the high street.

I am sorry to cut across you like that, Mr Burnett.

Andrew Richards talked about the circular economy. I am thinking of some kind of local content requirement, not only to shorten supply chains but—importantly—to catalyse local manufacturing. Should the Scottish Government be looking at something in that space to ensure that we have the drivers in place to support local manufacturing and—if demand is the issue—to drive up demand for it?

Thank you, convener—I am sorry to jump in again like this.

My question is probably most appropriately directed at Andrew Richards, who talked about the race to the bottom and the shift in risk from the public sector to the private sector, and about the need for investment in the construction industry more generally. What could the Scottish Government do to mitigate some of that shifting risk? I am thinking about some of the broader issues around driving up demand, such as the need for retrofitting and house building. Is there space for a national construction company, or something like that, which would allow us to focus and target investment and therefore limit the risk shift that you describe?

I welcome the Lord Advocate to the chamber, and I welcome her statement. I am pleased to hear about the extension of the recorded police warning guidelines to possession offences for class A drugs as appropriate, meaning that possession of all classes of drugs is now covered by RPWs. That is an important step towards ensuring a public health approach to the drugs crisis that Scotland faces and towards the decriminalisation of possession of drugs.

In her statement, the Lord Advocate—

I am coming to it, Presiding Officer.

Last year, diversion was offered in 1,000 single-charge possession cases. Can the Lord Advocate tell us how many of those resulted in successful completion of the diversion programme, being the point at which prosecutors decided that no further action was required? More generally, what was the value of those diversions in terms of better outcomes for those accused, their families and their communities, and costs saved by the criminal justice system, thereby freeing up resources for other support systems?

I will draw on the evidence that you have produced about medical professionals practising conversion therapy. What sanctions do they face? Does the practice largely go unchallenged because of fear of discussing it?

Thank you—that is helpful.

I have a second question, in which I will seek to draw out some of what Barbara Bolton has just said. What is your response to the suggestion that medical practitioners and psychotherapists could be criminalised if they do not affirm a young person’s gender identity? There is an issue around the balance between consent and affirmation, which can be seen as blurred. Even in law, we cannot legislate for blurred lines.

Thank you both for coming today, and for your powerful and informative contributions, previously and this morning. I am very mindful of the view that we should stop talking and get on. I share somewhat your frustration at the fact that we are still talking about the issue.

Igi Moon talked about the importance of intersectionality. Thank you for raising that issue, because I do not think that we have previously heard the matter being articulated in that way.

My questions draw on strands of what Pam Duncan-Glancy and Jeremy Balfour talked about earlier—in particular, medical professionals, in which I include the full range of healthcare professionals from clinical and medical professionals to psychotherapeutic professionals. How do we provide clarity on what is and is not allowed in respect of that setting being the safe space that you mentioned, and in relation to therapists being able to allow challenging and confusing exploration with patients, clients and survivors? I am interested to hear how you think our definition in law will impact on that.

I thank both of you for the clear summaries that you have provided this morning and for your detailed submissions.

I want to follow up on how legislation might have an impact on healthcare professionals, among whom I would include psychotherapeutic professionals. How can we ensure that the way in which we craft the definition the legislation provides clarity on which practices are allowable and which are not? There is an issue around medical professionals being able to offer support, guidance and advice on a range of options for people who may suffer from gender dysphoria, for instance.

I would be interested to hear your views on how we get that element right so that we ban what we need to ban but do not encroach on some of the very sensitive conversations that a medical professional should have with a patient—with the person in front of them.