Caniathe beth o'r moddau cyfleidiau mewn Welford. Fe gennychwch chi'n brydei cael ei awfntaniau i'w raiadau cyffirmaeth ac yn gyffirmaeth i'w gweld'r iawn. Fy fitting, gwybodd, mwy iawn a'i bod i chi i wneud arno yn cysylltu i'w gweld mwy fee i'r awfntaniau i wneud arno yn y cwmysgaredd, ac yn y gweld i'w wneud yn cyffirmaeth i'w gweld i'w weld i'w gweld i'w gweld i'w gweld i mwy iawn ac yn cyffirmaeth i'w gweld i'w gweld i'w gweld I'm very grateful for the opportunity to open this debate as convener of the Qualities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee and to be able to set out the findings of our report on petition PE 1817, entitled End Conversion Therapyne. The terms conversion therapy and conversion practices are used interchangeably in the report to reflect the word that is used by the petitioners and witnesses. However, the committee's preference is to use the term conversion practices. We consider this to be more accurate. The word therapy is typically used to convey a benefit, but the evidence that we heard was clear. There is nothing beneficial about so-called conversion therapy for those individuals who are subjected to it. The committee heard that current protective legislation is insufficient to prevent these harms from taking place. Our report is clear that conversion practices are abhorrent and are not acceptable in Scotland. They should be banned. Public petition PE 1817 was lodged in August 2020. It was referred to the session 5 Equalities and Human Rights Committee, which indicated in its legacy report that it should be taken forward for consideration by its successor committee. Our committee agreed to undertake an inquiry on the issues raised by the petition, and we launched our call for views, which ran from 6 July to 13 August 2021. We received around 1,400 responses predominantly from individuals. The committee held eight evidence sessions. In addition, we held private and formal sessions with individuals who had experienced conversion practices. On behalf of the committee, I thank all those who gave evidence, both in writing and orally. In particular, I thank those individuals who provided testimony of their experience as victims and survivors of conversion practices. It took immense courage to recount those experiences. Committee members found those testimonies harrowing, but they were invaluable to our work. The key issues identified in our evidence, upon which there was broad agreement, including from those in support of a ban and from those who expressed concerns, were the need for a clear definition of so-called conversion therapy or practices.  The committee recommends that the definition used in the report on conversion therapy by the UN independent expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity should be adopted. The committee is anxious to ensure that, in a similar way to legislation that exists to protect victims of domestic abuse or female genital mutilation, the definition of conversion practices in forthcoming legislation makes it clear that consent to such practices can never be informed and should not be available as a defence to those undertaking conversion practices. The majority of religious organisations that we heard from are in favour of a ban on conversion practices. The committee agrees that legislation should not pose any restriction on ordinary religious teaching or the right of people to take part in prayer or pastoral care or discussion, to discuss, explore or come to terms with their identity in a non-judgmental and non-directive way. However, we heard evidence that most conversion practices take place within a religious setting, including in the form of talking therapy, which is used with the intention of correcting sexuality or gender. The committee believes and recommends that such practices should fall within a ban. The committee heard persuasive evidence from many survivors of conversion practices that their faith is part of their identity and they have felt forced to choose between faith and their sexual orientation or gender identity, which can have a devastating impact. The committee believes that it is vital to involve religious and community leaders as legislation progresses and that education and awareness are crucial to promoting acceptance of diversity. We recommend that the Scottish Government engages with a wide range of faith and belief organisations in order to protect LGBT people and address concerns about protecting religious freedom. The committee agrees that there is no conflict in protecting religious freedom and protecting and preventing harm by putting a ban in place. The committee notes that the majority of healthcare bodies in the UK have signed up to the memorandum of understanding, a joint document signed by health, counselling and psychotherapy organisations, including NHS Scotland, which aims to end the practice of conversion therapy in the UK. One witness told us that they were aware of a limited number of instances of alleged conversion practices in medical settings and would wish to see a ban on this where there is an intention to change someone's sexuality or gender identity. The committee agrees that affirmative therapies where individuals are seeking support and a space to explore their identity in a non-directive setting where no set or preferred outcome is intended should be protected under the ban. However, we heard evidence that there is some confusion and misunderstanding around the term affirmative therapy and it would be helpful for clarity to be provided to the medical profession, counselling services and wider society on this. Concerns were expressed to the committee about the rights of parents to bring up their children in a way that is consistent with their moral and religious beliefs. The committee believes that there is a clear distinction to be made between parents having the right to bring up their children in line with their morals and values and having the directed intent to change their child's sexuality or gender identity. The committee agrees that any proposal should not pose restrictions on parents or schools to provide a safe space for discussion and exploration but should prohibit harmful practices that attempt to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity. The UK Government has indicated its plans to publish draft legislation in the spring of this year that would cover England and Wales. The committee agrees that Scotland should not wait for the UK legislation to be brought forward and considers that within the powers that are available to the Scottish Government and Parliament Scotland's specific legislation should be brought forward as soon as possible. The committee welcomes the Scottish Government's commitment to bringing forward legislation by the end of 2023 and the establishment of the expert advisory group to inform and develop policy. We recognise that work will be necessary to ensure the development of cross-border frameworks and we call on the UK Government to work with the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament on a ban. The committee agrees that prospective legislation should set out a fully comprehensive ban on conversion practices and should cover sexual orientation and gender identity, including trans identities. It should cover adults and children in all settings without exception and include so-called consensual conversion practices. The committee recommends that any ban should also include a ban on the advertising and promotion of conversion practices. The committee has strongly expressed views that legislation alone would not be sufficient to address conversion practices and that non-legislative measures would also be necessary to protect and support victims. The committee heard a broad range of suggestions for supportive measures that could complement legislation. In paragraphs 154 to 157 of a report set some of those out in detail. The committee noted concerns around how enforcement of a ban could be effective and believed that consideration should be given to how that role could be fulfilled by a public body to ensure that investigation, enforcement and accountability are possible. The committee is keen to ensure that time is not wasted gathering identical evidence from the same victims that we heard from during our private evidence sessions, which may also have the unintended consequence of re-traumatising victims. We therefore ask the Scottish Government to work with the committee in this regard. The committee is mindful of the volume of evidence that is already available, including the written and oral evidence that it has received. We consider that it is important to bring forward legislation promptly. In the report, we stated that we would welcome discussions with the Scottish Government on working together to bring forward a ban as quickly as possible. I welcome the minister's letter of 10 March offering to progress discussions with the committee on next steps and look forward to that further engagement. On behalf of the committee, I would also like to thank the minister and our fellow officials for their detailed response that they have provided in relation to each of our recommendations, including the assurances that those will be progressed through the work of the expert advisory group. In closing, I would like to again highlight once more the impact of the sessions that we held with individuals who had experienced conversion practices. Although the formal written and oral evidence that we received helped our consideration of the actions that have been called for in the petition, it was the testimony of each of those individuals that really impressed upon us the need for legislation to be brought forward as soon as possible. I move the motion in my name. Thank you very much indeed, minister. If it's static, I general reminder to anyone who does want to participate in the debate, they do need to press the request-to-speak buttons, and with that I call Christina McKelvie, minister for around seven minutes, please. Thank you very much. I am delighted to open in today's debate on the report on the petition to end conversion therapy. I want to be clear from the outset that it is essential that we act now to end conversion practices in Scotland. Those practices, as we have heard, are harmful, discriminatory and have no place in our society. There is no credible evidence to suggest that conversion practices can change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity. There is, however, very clear evidence of the serious harm that those practices cause and evidence that those practices are still taking place today. I want to end those practices once and for all and make sure that everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity, is safe from conversion practices in Scotland, free to be themselves. That debate is taking place as a result of the equalities that human rights and civil justice committees report on the petition to end conversion therapy, which was published on 25 January this year. I welcome that report and have written to Jo Fitzpatrick, the committee convener, noting my appreciation for the committee's detailed and sensitive work in this space, and addressed how the Scottish Government will approach their findings as we push forward with determination to end those practices. We hope to work closely with the committee on progressing our approach to a ban and will consider how we can best do that together. I want to offer and reassure the committee convener and members of the committee that I am keen to do that. The committee's finding form, in my opinion, is a cornerstone of our understanding of conversion practices in Scotland, in particular the accounts from survivors and those with lived experience of those terrible practices. I would like to thank those who gave evidence to the committee, especially those who shared their own experience of conversion practices. Their bravery for stepping forward and telling their stories is not only vitally important, it is admirable and courageous. They will help us to reshape the future, and I thank them for that. I thank the minister for giving way. As we have heard, the committee noted that many religious organisations that they heard from were in favour of a ban on conversion therapy practices, although clearly views were varied. It is therefore important that we make always clear that those measures are not about restricting religious teaching or preaching. Does the cabinet secretary agree that, in seeking to end the demonstrably harmful effects of the so-called therapies that we are talking about, it is important that we get representation from a broad range of religious and other organisations in order to achieve the best possible legislation? I thank Alasdair Allan for that intervention and respond to him. I have got a number of points through my speech today that will answer many of his questions and hopefully reassure him. In response, we recognise the existing legal protections of the rights to freedom of religion, expression, private and family life, among others, and the expert advisory group will explore how legislation can best protect and support those who need it while ensuring that freedoms are safeguarded. I will come on to that after I have explained a bit about the expert advisory group and who will be on it. As you know, the establishment of the expert advisory group on banning conversion practices was announced last November by the social justice cabinet secretary as a means to inform our approach to banning conversion practices as far as possible within our devolved competence. We want the membership of the group to be as intersectional and as representative as possible, while ensuring a focus on actions and outcomes at the pace that they will be working in, because it will be a short-term working group. Therefore, the membership includes individuals who are experts in their field from the LGBTI organisations, faith and belief organisations and their communities, mental health, the law, human rights and academia, and, importantly, there will be members who have personal lived experience of conversion practices on that group, too. On the timings for that group, we are planning to convene first meeting of the expert advisory group on banning conversion practices at the end of this month. The short life group will work until the summer when they will report their findings and recommendations to the Scottish Government. Following that, we will begin a process of public consultation that will run through to the autumn. A bill team will then be set up to look towards introducing legislation by the end of 2023. Our expert group will work at pace, as I have said, and they will consider all relevant evidence that is currently available, including the committee's response, the UK Government's consultation responses and other existing research to ensure that those harmful practices are banned. One of the questions that was asked in the committee's inquiry, too, is about definition. I know that there are a lot of questions around that. A key aspect for the consideration of the expert group will be determining what practices should be prohibited. I agree with the committee that clarity is needed on what would be encompassed by a legislative ban. It must be crystal clear for both organisations and individuals to understand not just their responsibilities but the protections that are in place to them. Pam Duncan-Glancy Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, for taking the intervention. Can you set out how you see the expert group working with the evidence already gathered by the committee? Most definitely some of the work that we do with the expert group will allow them to work out how they want to take some of that forward as well. In the first meeting, we will set those terms of reference in the work that they want to do. I think that there is a lot of work there. We are really keen for the group not to do double the work. If already the committee has done a huge piece of work, that is why I have described it as a cornerstone of our work going forward. There is lots of academic study there as well, and the group themselves were in the process of issuing those invitations. There are a lot of people who had to have a bit of thought about joining the group. We want to make sure that they are all in place, and I will be able to announce who the group is. You will see from the breadth and depth of that that they will be able to respond to some of the real challenges that we see in this, but also come up with the ideas and the resolutions and how to fix it as well.  That view is echoed by the memorandum of understanding on conversion therapy in the UK, which supports positive practices that assist individuals as they explore and accept their gender identity and sexual orientation at their own pace. The expert group will explore what that means fully, taking into account established definitions from organisations such as the UN, as well as looking into definitions from forests, forest and jurisdictions. I would hope that that would be another answer to Pam Duncan-Glancy's question about the areas where we will explore. There are a lot of concerns and issues and questions that have been raised around that. I want to be absolutely clear that, although we build our understanding on how we can best protect and support those who are experienced in these herended practices, we must be mindful that freedoms, including freedom of speech, religion and belief, are safeguarded. The Scottish Government welcomes and acknowledges the importance of engaging with faith and belief organisations, which is why the expert group's membership includes faith and belief representatives. I thank the member for that. It is very important that religious and faith groups are involved in this whole process, because they have a right to have their say in this. I ask the minister what views will be taken from the group itself as to what will be achieved and how they will be managed, because it is quite a delicate situation to try and balance. I absolutely agree with Alexander Stewart. It is a delicate situation to balance, and we are very mindful of that and very sensitive to that. We take a lead from the work that the committee did and how sensitive and balanced the work that the committee has done on that. We will come from that point of view. It is clear that there are concerns and that there is potential impacts on religious freedom, and we will ensure that those are considered extremely carefully and sensitively, as I said. However, we are also certain that the advancement of LGBTI rights and protections through end-in-conversion practices does not mean a regression of religious freedoms. We are mindful of the existing legal protections of the rights to freedom of religion and expression among others. As highlighted by Jen Ang of Just Rights Scotland, when giving evidence to the committee, it is essential that we nurture and promote safe spaces within religious communities and support appropriate pastoral care, as for some of it is in a religious setting where they would best be able to access a non-judgmental and supportive environment in which to explore their gender identity and sexual orientation. I will take quite a few, and I am just a bit finished. I am sorry, but I might come in in the summing up. There is just a quick point on healthcare. I also want to ensure that mental health services, religious bodies and other professionals are properly supported to provide appropriate services to people seeking help and advice in relation to their sexual orientation or gender identity. Representatives from specialist healthcare services on the expert group will be able to be able to share their views, including on capacity building needed in the sector. They will also provide the necessary curriculum updates and training to provide support for mental health professionals enabling them to do their jobs effectively and with confidence. I welcome the committee's suggestions on non-legislive measures that need to be brought forward to protect and support victims. I am glad that there is an acknowledgement that significant resource and planning would be required to do so. The expert group will consider those suggestions as well as investigate further what possible protections and support could be offered to victims and survivors. What is absolutely clear, the conversion practices have no place in Scotland and I welcome hearing the chamber's views on the committee's report and the measures that we need to take to push forward with ending those abhorrent practices. Thank you very much minister. I am afraid that we are slightly behind the clock now, so interventions will have to be incorporated into speeches and our call on Alexander Stewart for in six minutes. I am grateful for the opportunity to open this debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. I welcome that this issue has been given parliamentary time this afternoon, of which I am sure will be shared amongst my members of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. The case for introducing a ban on conversion practice has been one of the key works that the committee has focused on during this parliamentary session. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the many individuals, charities and campaign groups who provided evidence to the committee on the issue. However, in particular, I would like to take the time to talk about the individuals who are willing to share their own experiences of conversion practices. It was hard to hear and hard for them to do. I remember clearly one of the survivors from the practices describing conversion therapy as both horrendous and threatening and spoke of how badly his mental health suffered because of it, something that almost drove him to a nervous breakdown. It will, no doubt, come as no difficult situation and circumstances, that personal testimonies of trauma are very important. We had and we did receive some very trying testimonies. Indeed, the testimonies were not easy for witnesses, as I have said to give us, but I give them full respect for the attitude that they had and the courage that they had in bringing those testimonies to the committee and ensuring that we heard first hand how they had been treated and how the important practices took place. Those benches are therefore clear that we need to look forward to our ban on conversion practices. Much of the evidence that we heard at the committee points to a comprehensive approach of a ban being preferred. For example, some medical professionals spoke about the possibility of a less comprehensive ban resulting in loopholes, which could cause some concerns going forward. In the respect of the clear proposals that were put forward, they should mirror existing bans on such areas as female general mutilation in the fact that the possibility to ensure that there will have to be some legal content for those practices. However, although I welcome the comprehensive ban on those practices, it is perhaps disappointing that we have taken a bit of slow progress to get here. I acknowledge the fact that the Scottish Government has established advisory capacity and the committee. I am delighted that we have heard some clarity on where we are with that, because it was back in November and we are now in March. There has been some time, minister, but I am delighted that you have clarified today as to how that is going to take place. Our committee was clear that the Scottish Government should not wait for the UK Government to act before putting forward legislation. We have now had confirmation that the UK Government ban will only apply to England and Wales. Despite having that, it is important that we go forward and talk about the possibilities of cross-border frameworks on the issue that will no doubt be important. The UK Equalities Minister might fear that has given assurances that the UK Government will work constructively with the Scottish Government in attempting to bring in the ban on conversion practices and the therapy. Given that the truly comprehensive ban will include criminalisation of practicals and also falling into that, it is very important that there will be clear legislation that will fall here in the devolved areas. That is important. The time to act is now, not later but now, and further steps need to be taken to ensure that that becomes the case. Given the consensus that the ban has had and the practices needed for the Government, we should be looking at ensuring that we are moving forward on this at pace, and I look forward to seeing that take place. There are already international examples of how such a ban has taken place and is working across. We know that our 13 countries have already introduced a ban on some of the forms that they wish to elk in. I welcome the Government has stated that it will consider existing practices where the ban has taken place and Scotland wants to ensure that it has that opportunity. Regardless of the importance of going forward, while the UK Government is going through its own process for its legislation, the Scottish Government should be doing and is going to be doing all within its capabilities and possibilities to ensure that we can look forward to banning the process. I am pleased to see that the Parliament has given the opportunity to debate today, Presiding Officer, because it is vitally important that we send a very strong message from the chamber to those individuals and organisations that we will not accept what has been the practice in the past. We want to ensure that there is constructive debate on the whole topic. Therefore, it is really good to see that there has been cross-party consensus on the issue about banning the process. It is vitally important that the ban is effective, comprehensive and timious in what it is trying to achieve. Going forward, I and the other members of the committee stand ready to scrutinise the Government's progress on the issue and ensure that any forthcoming ban meets every one of the criteria that we have set out, because that is what we said to those individuals who gave us evidence that we would take on board their views, their opinions, and we would protect individuals for the future. By having a ban, that will certainly be the case. After many months of committee work on this issue and on developing the report before Parliament, I am pleased to lead this debate for Scottish Labour today. I want to start by paying tribute to the hard work of Blair Anderson and Tristyn Gray who brought the petition on conversion practice to the Parliament, and who spoke powerfully when in front of the committee on the need for a full and comprehensive ban on conversion practices. Their motivation, persistence and dedication to ending those hateful practices in Scotland are the reason that we are here today, discussing the report, and I hope that we will discuss real legislative changes in the not-too-distant future. I want to share my deepest thank you with Blair Anderson and other survivors of conversion practice who, bravely, in sharing their stories with the Equalities and Human Rights Committee, reinforced to us the horror of what can and is happening in the absence of legislation. When we talk about conversion practice, we may think of it happening in faraway countries, in places that we associate with being regressive in the Equalities and Human Rights laws, in cults perhaps, or vehemently hardline religious settings. That is why hearing from our survivors has been so important, because the reality is that it is happening here in Scotland. The reality of where it takes place and how it manifests is far more complex. Blair Anderson's experience, for example, happened at the hands of his parents in his own family home. Another testimony I heard spoke of conversion practice that took place over several years in an evangelical setting, and by people, the survivor themselves described as people with some of the biggest hearts I have ever encountered. Those things are happening in small places close to home, which, as Eleanor Roosevelt reminds us, is exactly where our human rights begin. Presiding Officer, this is about human rights. This is why it matters, and this is why it is incumbent upon us to act. For people out there today who are living through this trauma, things are moving slowly and not at the pace required to prevent what is effectively a process of torture. We cannot tolerate this. The committee has had a wealth of evidence on the practices that continue to take place in Scotland, and as a country that prides itself on its progressive values, we would fail on our duty to act if we held off any longer. I am pleased to hear the commitment from the minister that will move a pace today. The Scottish Government has previously argued that it must wait and see what the UK Government legislation, due to come forward in this area, may look like before moving to introduce its own legislation. On that matter, the evidence that I have seen from the UK Government so far really worries me. The Prime Minister himself has spoken of gay conversion therapy, suggesting that a ban would come but not as a full and comprehensive ban that we need. I am clear that any legislation must include all non-affirmative forms of therapy for trans people, too. We heard in our sessions that trans people are likely those within the LGBT plus community who are at most risk from those practices, and so it is crucial that a ban ensures that they are protected and applied to both sexual orientation and gender identity. If we look to international best practice, the Conversion Practices Prohibition Act 2021, from Victoria Australia, sets out a criterion of three pillars to define conversion therapy, that the conduct is directly targeted, that it has taken place on the basis of someone's sexual orientation or of their gender identity, and that the conduct has a predetermined outcome to change a person's behaviour. My vision of a full and comprehensive ban informed by much of the evidence heard by our committee would have to go at least as far as this to be a worthy piece of legislation that ensures abhorrent conversion practices that fulfil the criteria that are prohibited and criminalised. I am also clear that a ban of this framework must protect affirmative approaches, too, and alleviate concerns that medical or religious professionals could be punished for offering therapy like that. The committee heard that affirmative therapy is about holding the space for an individual to find out who they are and ensuring that they can come to that decision themselves in a supportive way. That, I believe, is crucial because it outlines the clear difference between the vital supportive conversions that are conversations that allow people to grow and develop themselves and the practices that we would be seeking to ban, practices that force someone down a particular route. For that legislation to deliver on its aims, there must be no room for loopholes or exemptions, it must be comprehensive and watertight. Again, the UK Government legislation is likely to fall short in that. So far, there has been a worrying indication that it believes consent to conversion practices is possible. Allowing manoeuvre or interpretation in this area would allow for consent to be used as a defence, and survivors have been clear that consent is a misnomer or a red herring, a completely misleading use of terminology. As Blair Anderson so strongly put it, people cannot consent to being tortured or abused. We have closed those loopholes in legislation before if we look to the law banning female gennal till mutilation, as well as forced marriage. We cannot must do it again, and we must ensure that in this case, as we move forward with what I hope will be a concrete piece of legislation in the coming period, we must do the same here. Deputy Presiding Officer, we have no time to lose on this, and I urge colleagues across the chamber to act with impatience and to act here, in this place, to end conversion practices as soon as possible. Thank you very much indeed. The committee has done excellent work. Joe Fitzpatrick delivered his contribution with passion and care. The report is good, sensitive and thorough. The whole chamber should be grateful, because the committee is doing its work at its best. A UK survey of 108,000 LGBT plus people in the UK showed that nearly one in 13 have been offered, or have been compelled to receive conversion therapy or practice, therapy in their mind, practice in ours. That number rose to one in seven among transgender people. I think that the word therapy—and I agree with Joe Fitzpatrick—is incredibly misleading and extremely inaccurate. Those practices are not a benefit, so they are not a therapy. Author and sociologist Deshaun Stokes said that it is not conversion therapy, it is conversion brainwashing, and we should say what we mean. Some of those who facilitate the practice do so out of a misguided idea that they are somehow helping, but the evidence is to the contrary, and it is abundantly clear. Those who have suffered through it have spoken of the negative effects on their lives and the trauma that it has left them with. The mental health charity Mind has said that this practice can cause a great deal of psychological distress. It often leads to long-term feelings of isolation and low self-esteem. As a result, far too many people are left to struggle with anxiety and depression, which in some cases results in self-harm and even suicide. People coming to this therapy are often at a vulnerable point in their lives. Just when they are in most need of a space to share their thoughts and feelings openly and freely, they are being met with judgment and ignorance. People are being let down. The situation, as Pam Duncan Glancy said, is urgent. Any practice that seeks to suppress or change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity is a harmful practice, and it is quite baffling why it is still happening in Scotland. I therefore support the committee on the adoption of the UN definition. My party has a proud tradition of fostering diversity and championing the rights of individuals to privacy and autonomy. We believe that people should be able to live their lives as they fit, unencumbered and without intrusion. Those principles are crucial to the protection of LGBT plus orientations and identities. That is why we believe that those practices should be entirely banned. As the committee has shown in its report, six countries, including 20 United States states, have already enforced a ban, so what are we waiting for? I was pleased with the minister's response and the constructive engagement between the minister and the committee. That bodes well for getting this right. I do not think that we should wait on UK legislation. We have done it before, we should just crack on with it. We should be bringing that forward, that legislation now to rid ourselves of this practice. I want to leave you with the words of Carlin. Carlin is our trans woman in her seventies, who has written of the impact of the practice, still has on her lives, years later. Whenever I remembered the treatment that I had, I would start physically shaking. In that sense, you could say that the therapy worked, in that it affected my body. However, in terms of my mind and my thoughts, it only made me hate myself more. It was only when I retired, aged 55, that I felt that I could live openly as myself. Although things got so much better, I would still have flashbacks from my conversion therapy sessions 40 years later. For Carlin and so many others, let's just get this done. Thank you, Mr Rennie. We now move to the open debate. I call first Fulton MacGregor, then to be followed by Meghan Gallagher, for around four minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It's a great pleasure to speak in this debate today and what seems so far anyway a very consensual debate across the chamber. As a member of the Equalities Committee, I want to associate myself with the words of the convener at the start. There should be a little argument about whether conversion practices should end in Scotland. Those practices are abhorrent, they cause undue harm and trauma and have absolutely no place in today's Scotland. I also want to welcome the commitment of the Scottish Government, as put forward by the minister, to bring forward legislation to ban conversion practices by 2023. I believe that UK Government proposals do not go far enough to protect people in Scotland, and we need to do what we can here in this chamber. As a committee, we have heard extensive and often emotional adharoing testimonies from those who have survived conversion practices in one form or another, and others have already spoke eloquently about some of those testimonies. I, like them, want to put in record my thanks to those individuals, because I know that it could not have been easy for them, and I hope that what they told us will now go on to shape legislation and protect others. I would also encourage the Government, as others have done, and ultimately I guess the advisory group, not to duplicate the work that we have done, because we do not want people to have to share their stories again and potentially relive that trauma again. I think that the minister has already acknowledged that. It is also important, as the committee has done for the advisory group, to take into account international examples of best practice, such as Victoria in Australia, as Pam Duncan-Glancy has mentioned. We can learn from those jurisdictions because there were issues that we heard there that perhaps they could have done things differently as well, and they are now looking to change that. If there are best examples out there in international practice, we can look to them. Unfortunately, the truth is, I also acknowledge that those practices still very much exist in Scotland. The UK Government's national LGBT survey 2018 is found at 5 per cent if LGBTQ plus people have been offered, but did not proceed with conversion therapy. A further 2 per cent of people had undergone conversion therapy. The Scottish Government, as we know, is committed to ensuring that everyone regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity is safe from such horrendous conversion practices in Scotland. There is absolutely no credible evidence, as the minister has said, that those practices even work. Indeed, I do not even believe that it is about whether they work or not. I believe that the notion that you can change someone's sexual orientation or gender identity is simply wrong at its core. The practices that we encourage suppression and denial are also wrong and ultimately cause an individual great harm, as we have heard, and impact their mental health in a multitude of ways. Being LGBTI is not a choice when we cannot treat it as such. I am also pleased that our report from the committee took the view that the definition of conversion practices in any proposed law should make it clear that there is no such thing as informed consent to the practice and that it cannot be used as a defence by those carrying it out. I think that Pam Duncan-Glancy was the one that quoted one of her witnesses to the committee when he said that she cannot consent to torture. There is evidence that those who are said to consent are actually coerced and do so under significant pressure from others. It feels important to highlight that most faith leaders—because I think that this is the area of most discussion, if you like—do support a ban on conversion practices. We know that legislation should not restrict ordinary religious teaching or the right of people to take part in any prayer or pastoral care to discuss, explore or come to terms with their identity in a non-judgmental and non-directive way. In fact, the committee did hear evidence that for many survivors of conversion practices, their faith is a big part of their identity, and they have often at times felt forced to choose between faith and their sexual orientation or gender identity. That is clearly wrong and should not happen. In fact, some of the faith leaders who had concerns about a ban on conversion therapy did share their views that they thought that the practice itself was important, but it was about the technicalities of how it might be banned. I am afraid that you need to conclude now, Mr MacGregor. It has been a short debate, in terms of speaking. It is more, as I said, but I welcome the committee's report and I welcome the Government's response to that, and I look forward to shaping this important practice as banned. As we have already heard from voices across the chamber today, there is a consensus amongst MSPs to ban conversion practices here in Scotland. Should the ban on conversion therapy be voted through, Scotland would follow 13 other countries worldwide that have already banned this practice, including Brazil, Norway, Switzerland and several regions of Spain. I share the views of many MSPs in this Parliament that conversion therapy, or as it is sometimes referred to, is gay cure therapy, is wrong and it has no place in modern-day society. It is therefore upsetting to learn, as highlighted by Fulton MacGregor, that, as recently as 2018, a study conducted by national LGBT found that around 5 per cent of LGBT respondents said that they had been offered conversion therapy to cure them of being LGBT. Being gay, lesbian or bisexual is not an illness. People within the LGBT community have nothing to be ashamed of. In fact, they should be able to love who they want and be comfortable in their own skin. In preparation for today's debate, I read statements of conversion therapy survivors such as Justin Beck, who realised that he was attracted to men and turned to his place of worship for guidance. He put himself forward for conversion therapy and was left completely emotionally traumatised by the experience that he described as enforced repression. Justin, of course, is one of many examples of individuals who have been subjected to conversion therapy. We must continue to listen to those who have endured such practices to ensure that this Parliament finally implements the ban. The persecution of LGBT people has a horrific and dark history and we must continue to look at and debate ways to help and support those who are members of this community. One way to do this would be to consign conversion therapy to the history books during this parliamentary term. In October 2021, the UK Government announced that it would consult on the proposals to implement a legislative ban on conversion therapy across England and Wales. The bill itself would criminalise the talking conversion therapy, which would prevent any non-consensual attempt to convince or coerce a gay person to be straight or vice versa. It is my understanding that the Scottish Government has taken a different approach as it is right as a devolved administration in terms of its implementation to ban conversion therapy. On-going discussions have taken place between the UK and Scottish Governments to ensure consistency when looking at this important issue. It is also welcome after hearing robust evidence from the Equalities Committee during the last parliamentary term that an advisory group has been set up to investigate how to implement the ban here in Scotland. I also recognise the minister's comments on religious freedoms and the concerns that religious groups have raised. It is a delicate situation and I hope that the advisory group will continue to look at and engage with all views on conversion therapy as we move forward. As my colleague Alexander Stewart rightly highlighted during his contribution, it now falls on the Scottish Government to ensure progress is made to prevent yet more LGBT people from facing the humiliating and mentally traumatising practice of conversion therapy. However, as the group will not meet until the end of the month, we still need reassurance and the minister has given some of that already that this matter will be treated with urgency and the care and respect that it deserves, especially as this issue was first raised with the Scottish Parliament in 2020 through a petition that secured over 5,000 signatures. We are now two years down the road. Survivors and campaigners will be eager to see the ban in place as soon as possible. There is overwhelming support across this Parliament and, indeed, throughout our communities to end conversion therapy practices. I therefore, to conclude, join calls from across the chamber to bring the bill forward as quickly as possible and to ban conversion therapy here in Scotland. Thank you very much, Ms Gallagher. I now call on Karen Adam to be followed by Paula Kane for four minutes please, Ms Adam. Supporting the work of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee over the last few months is something that I certainly shall never forget, not least because it was my first substantial piece of work as an MSP and as a committee member, but because this is a vital piece of work in progressing towards a more inclusive society. However, most importantly, because of the evidence that I heard during our sessions, I want to thank everybody who came and gave evidence to the committee, most of all those who shared their lived experience. I particularly mention to the end conversion therapy Scotland campaign, who have tirelessly worked hard to ensure that this harmful practice comes to an end here in Scotland. I know that there are some out there who believe that LGBT conversion practices will rectify sexual or gender identity, but to rectify something insinuates that something needs fixed. Generations of LGBT people have been made to feel less than or that there's something fundamentally wrong with who they are simply for being same-sex attracted or discovering that their gender identity doesn't correspond with the assumed gender they were assigned at birth. The only thing wrong in that regard is how societies across the world have inflicted harm on LGBT people simply for existing.   Not only must conversion practices come to an end in Scotland, but all of us in this chamber today as role models, public figures and lawmakers have a responsibility to embody that change in our day-to-day lives, calling out bigotry where we see it, offering to sport to those in need of it. And stand shoulder to shoulder against all forms of abuse. I remember as part of the Qualities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee's evidence session on conversion practices. I heard from two people in a closed meeting. After one session in particular, I broke down.  It was extremely hard to hear of the practical methods of torture in reality and the psychological harm that we as a society have inflicted on so many. The torment endured by the individual I had just spoken with was cruel and torturous. I could not stop thinking the entire time of how unnecessary their experience had been for this woman simply because she was trans. What she needed more than anything was love, support and acceptance. Instead, what she endured was torment and abuse in the form of gaslighting. The stigma and outdated pressures that force the situation into being is thankfully now not seen as acceptable. Many in society now support a ban. As my colleagues have said today, many in the medical and psychological professionals and regulatory bodies such as the British Medical Association and most faith leaders support a ban too. In conclusion, I am delighted that the hard-working campaigners have been heard and that the voices of those with lived experience have been listened to. I am delighted to see the work that the Government is doing to progress a ban on those practices, but we must take this as one part of many to eradicate any notion that being LGBTQIA plus is anything but okay. We must acknowledge that cisgendered and heterosexual is not the default setting for a human being, and not only should we not discriminate against someone based on their sexuality or gender identity, but we should actively welcome and embrace all into our culture here in Scotland the many varied and wonderful people our country has made up of. I am pleased to be able to contribute to this extremely important committee debate and to follow powerful speeches by colleagues across the chamber. May I also pay tribute to the work of colleagues in the Equalities, Human Rights and Social Justice Committee for their work thus far in investigating and reporting on conversion practices and for the recommendation contained in the report for a comprehensive legal ban. As a substitute member of the committee, I have had a little insight into the testimony offered by witnesses and the power contained therein, particularly from those who have suffered the pain of so-called conversion therapy. I think that it is also right that we pay tribute to the petitioners in conversion therapy Scotland and the many organisations who have supported it and indeed have supported the committee's work. Conversation practices are dangerous, cruel and cause lasting damage to those who experience them. They are in violation of fundamental human rights, and in the words of Amnesty International, they are inherently humiliating, demeaning and discriminatory. Evidence shows that the majority of conversion practices are carried out in a faith setting. As a person of faith, I find that horrifying, and as a gay person, I have found that terrifying. I am fortunate that I have never had to experience what survivors bravely spoke about to the committee. As a survivor from Glasgow described, I am not sure that I could ever put into enough words the effect that it has had on my life. It has nearly cost me my life on several occasions because I could not cope with who I was, who I am. I feel robbed of joy, of safety, of self-worth, of opportunity, of who I actually am and who I should have been free to explore and live all my life. Much of what I went on to experience and how I have struggled to navigate through my life has stemmed from that. That is hard to contemplate—joy, safety, self-worth, fundamentals for our very existence. Although I have never experienced conversion practices directly, as a Christian, I have had some encounters that I believe can ultimately lead to them being employed. Being told that being LGBT plus is sinful, a sinful choice, and that conversion is required. Being told that there is something intrinsically disordered about LGBT plus people. Being held to different standards to heterosexual peers. Even having someone at church write to my dad when I was young to out me on the expectation that he would do something about the incompatibility of my faith and my sexuality. I was lucky in response to my family having only ever shown me love and affirmation. But not everyone is so fortunate. As we have heard already, seven per cent of LGBT plus people in Scotland have either undergone or been offered so-called conversion therapy, including 10 per cent of trans people. We know from evidence that that is often part of family pressure. I was particularly pleased to be in committee on the day Jane Ozan of the Ozan Foundation gave very compelling evidence in this regard. I have been heartened to see the committee finding that the majority of religious organisations are opposed to conversion therapy and support a ban. I want to particularly praise on an international level the work of Father James Martin S.J. and Dr Mary Macalese, the former president of the Republic of Ireland, for their work that has had profound impact on me and on my faith. Today is another step towards ending conversion practices in Scotland, but we now need a bill for a comprehensive ban. I know what the minister has said in regard to that, and I would associate myself with the comments of colleagues on the need for urgency. We know that legislation alone is not enough. We need resources, support services for victims and survivors, and a comprehensive awareness campaign on the unacceptability of conversion practice. However, for now, to LGBT-plus people of all faith and none, I will finish with a quote. I am fearfully and wonderfully made, and so are you. Thank you very much indeed, Mr McCain. I now call on John Mason to be followed by Gillian Mackay up to four minutes, please, Mr Mason. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak, and I welcome the committee report, and I'm happy to support a ban as well. I think that we should start with what we are all agreed on, and I hope that we would all be against any attempts to force people to change what they are and also against any use of beating or other types of violence. Where there is likely to be some disagreement is over definitions and terms being used. For example, conversion is seen in many religious circles as being a positive word. It means turning around and is good if somebody is turning away from something bad, like alcohol or drug abuse. One of the best-known conversions was of Saint Paul, who turned from persecuting Christian believers to becoming one himself, so most people would see that as positive.  The main thrust of Bible teaching is on activity. For example, sexual relationships should be within marriage, although there is also teaching against attitudes like lust. Where as society is a whole and our legal set-up would allow multiple sexual relationships, Christian teaching would encourage sexual relations with just one person and that within marriage. Presumably, we can accept that a religion or a club or an association should be free to have its own teaching going above and beyond the law of the land, whether that be a dress code in a bowling club or night club, or teaching around alcohol or sex in a religious setting. If a Christian leader engages in sexual relationship outside marriage, as I know has happened recently with a prominent church leader in Canada, that person would be expected to stand down and to repent of their wrong actions. That is despite no Canadian law having been broken. As convener of the cross-party group on freedom of religion or belief, I would want to urge Parliament to be careful about interfering too much with religious beliefs and practices. That certainly applies to the practice of prayer, which is primarily about a person's relationship with God. I accept and Jesus himself taught that prayer can be abused and end up being more about speaking to people rather than to God. However, at its heart, prayer is about a very intimate relationship, including brain problems to him and asking for his wisdom in how to deal with those problems. Only God knows our hearts, our true intentions and our deepest thoughts, so I think that the state has to be wary of interfering in someone's relationship with God through prayer, whether that be an individual praying or two people praying together or prayer in a group setting. Another aspect of this is self-control, especially in the New Testament. There are nine great values called the fruits of the Holy Spirit, including love, joy, peace and so on. One of them is self-control. Therefore, Christian teaching and prayer would not be so much on a right or wrong sexual orientation if that is what someone is to a large extent that needs to be accepted. However, the need for self-control and choosing not to put your thoughts or desires into action is key. I might have a natural desire to eat the attractive food that I see, but many of us are tempted to eat too much chocolate or drink too much alcohol. That is where self-control comes in. We sometimes need to say no to ourselves. Following on from that, any repentance and prayer would be focused on wrong activities rather than on wrong orientation. It was wrong to drink so much alcohol. How can I change? It was wrong for me to have sex with various people. How can I change? Broadly speaking, I am happy to support a ban on conversion practices, but with the condition that we are careful about definitions in the legislation and we do not attempt to interfere in freedom of religion or belief. I call on Gillian Mackay, who joins us remotely to be followed by Emma Roddick, up to four minutes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Thanks also to the Equality, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee for their work gathering evidence and compiling the report into ending conversion practices in Scotland. Thanks to campaigners, witnesses who gave evidence and all those who have written to their MSPs, expressing support for decisive action. It can be all too easy when we see significant moments of progress for LGBTQ plus people, such as repealing section 28, or bringing in marriage equality that we think the job is done and the fight for equality is won. It can be easy to forget all those who are left behind or who are forgotten in those moments, all of those whose stories we never get to hear. By definition, conversion therapy is silencing.  I hope that today we can all say with one voice, without reservation or hesitation, all of Scotland's LGBTQ plus people and especially to those who are not yet able to say it aloud for themselves. You are not broken. You are not sick. You are not wrong. You do not need fixed or cured or converted because who you are is perfect. We will protect you from those who would try and change you. While we have seen progress on LGBTQ plus equality in Scotland throughout the lifetime of this Parliament, we have also seen in recent years a deeply concerning rise in transphobia in Scottish public life and especially online. At the heart of homophobia, biphobia and transphobia is hatred and fear of those who are different, of those who sexual and gender diversity goes against what has often been considered the norm. Inversion therapy puts that hatred and fear into practice.  One of the most common concerns that I have seen in public debate in recent months is about the impact of a conversion therapy ban on trans people and especially young trans people. Some people seem concerned that a conversion therapy ban will criminalise parents trying to support children who are struggling with their own sexuality or gender identity, that we will be complicit in forcing confused young people to be trans. That is not true. The idea that there is a big conspiracy or agenda to turn young people trans is a lie designed to scare monger. It is one that we have heard before against cis lesbians gay and bi people in the debates around section 28 and eco marriage. It is designed to stir up fear and anxiety about those who are different. What was true then is still true now.   I am grateful to the committee for spelling out so clearly in their report the reality of affirming care and what it means for young people. It does not mean that anyone will try to turn someone into something that they are not. It does mean that people struggling with their sexuality or gender identity will be given safe and accepting space in which they should come to terms with who they truly are without prejudice or pressure. I hope that one day soon we will not just be debating conversion practices, but we will be passing legislation that ends it for good. Scotland's young people deserve a country where they can grow up to be truly who they are, and that requires a conversion therapy ban that protects all of Scotland's LGBTQ plus people. Thank you very much indeed, Ms Mackay. I now call on Emma Roddick to be followed by Craig Hoy. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As the first out-parliamentarian to represent the Highlands and Islands, this issue is one very close to my heart and it strikes very close to home. I know that also representing part of the region you also understand how important greater acceptance of LGBTQI neighbours, particularly in our rural and island communities, is. The implication of conversion therapy is that my sexuality and the sexualities and gender identities of many of my friends and others in the community is wrong or something that should or could be fixed is offensive to me. As my colleague Mr Fitzpatrick outlined in his opening remarks, therapy is an inaccurate way of describing conversion practices. A member of my team told me today that the word therapy derives from the Greek word for healing. Conversion practices are just the opposite. They inflict severe pain and suffering, resulting in long-lasting psychological and physical damage. As someone with mental health issues brought on by trauma, it is disgusting to me that this is something anyone would wish to debate. Anyone who feels that there is any defence to openly stating that anyone else should be legally free to cause harm—and we know that conversion practices do cause real harm—to someone else because of something that they cannot choose or control should be deeply ashamed of themselves. I also want to echo an important point that others have already made that many people of faith firmly believe in ending conversion practices and supporting LGBTQI people. Like many here, I have also been contacted by some who are concerned that an end to conversion practices infringes on their right to religion. I respect people's rights to have a religion and to hold personal beliefs, and I respect that often religion influences those beliefs.  What I do not respect are views that I do not consider deserving of respect, namely views that I or people like me are not worthy of respect ourselves because of who we are or that we should not have a right to bodily autonomy or that our human right not to be subjected to torture or degrading treatment should not be upheld. I do not respect hate and I do not respect the use of religion as a shield for bigotry. When I was taught Christianity by some of the kindest people I have ever known, I was taught to accept and forgive and that it was not for me to pass judgment on others. This is not a matter of freedom of religion, homophobia is not a religion, transphobia is not a religion, the violence of psychologically tormenting LGBTQ people is not a protected belief. The right to hate others has nothing to do with the Christianity that I know. On the matter of self-control, self-control is only an admirable virtue when the thing that you are trying to control is inherently wrong.  I would suggest that those who feel the need to try and control and change others to the point that they want to intervene on their human rights should show some self-control and consider whether it is their place to judge or their place to decide that someone else's behaviour or sexual orientation is something to be fixed. People are gay, people are trans, get over it. I would like to finish by directly addressing my colleagues on the Scottish National Party benches and to all those who share my aim to create a better Scotland. We are rightly proud of Scotland's historic record on LGBTQI rights. It is the sort of basis for the Scotland of the future that makes me so hopeful about the future of our country. We cannot allow ourselves to slip, to slow down in our determination to make this country the best it can be. We must follow the example of France and Canada and ban conversion practices in Scotland for good. I thank the Equalities Committee for its report and the Minister for the Commitment that she has given today.  The process of coming out and coming to terms with sexuality is not simple. Different people take very different routes on the same journey. For some, coming to terms with being gay today will be a straightforward step, but, for others, the path that they take will be far more difficult to travel. Many will engage the support of family or friends and some might seek counselling, but that should never involve counselling to find a cure and it should never ever involve coercion, for there is no illness to treat and no abnormality to be normalised. Trying to argue against people being gay in Scotland today is like arguing against the Scottish weather. The young gay men and women who walk past this Parliament every day and who walk into this Parliament every day are as much a part of the natural fabric of Scotland as the drizzle that too frequently falls upon them. Deputy Presiding Officer, trying to influence the weather would prove futile and ineffective, and so too is seeking to influence people's sexuality, even though in the past the state, the law, religion and sometimes the medical profession have tried to do so. Since then, however, thankfully society has changed, but the views of some have not. People have a right to believe in different things. We cannot and we should not legislate against this, but we do need to legislate to give people protection from the consequences of this, and that is what we are debating today. Conversion therapy or conversion practices are dangerous, especially, but not only, where coercion is involved. It can damage people's mental health and scar people's lives irreparably, as Willie Rennie has said. It relies on discredited practices, practices that have been rejected by medical and mental health professionals for decades. Sadly, that practice is not uncommon. As we have heard in 2017, the national LGBT survey found that 5 per cent of respondents said that there had been offered conversion or reparative therapy, and a further 2 per cent had undergone that therapy. I believe that a ban on conversion therapy is now overdue, and I welcome the minister's commitment and hope that the Government will move swiftly. For any individual or organisation, to try to change or suppress someone's sexuality is fundamentally wrong, but not all agree, and I look closely at the words of the Christian Institute. They warned that laws on conversion therapy could put prayer, preaching, parenting and pastoral care at risk, and I will look with interest to see how their opposition will be sustained, particularly as I hope that the legislation carefully addresses and protects religious freedoms. I welcome the committee's report, and I understand the need for urgency, but I hope that the safeguards that we put in place can be broadly aligned across the UK. That is why I hope that this Parliament looks closely at the recommendations and the laws that come forward from the UK Government and that apply in England and Wales. If we then determine that that legislation does not go far enough, then we in this Parliament can legislate in that regard. It was the words of conversion practice survivors that influenced the committee's report, and I thank those brave individuals and those groups for opening up and sharing their stories. Today, the advertisements that we see on the television feature lesbian and gay couples. Being gay no longer requires you to tell lies, to feel guilty or to feel abnormal. Nobody should feel the need to change who they are and nobody should pressurise them into doing so. That is why I look forward to the UK joining other progressive nations in bringing forward a comprehensive ban on those practices. Thank you very much, Mr Hoy. We now move to closing speeches. I call Pam Duncan-Glancy for up to five minutes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I welcome the debate that has taken place in the chamber today, and I am pleased to see the cross-party support for PACE on legislation and the need for a comprehensive ban on conversion practice. I particularly welcome the minister's commitment to end the practices soon. I also thank my colleagues on the committee for the passion and fervour that they have approached this. I am proud to associate myself with their words today. I thank Joe Fitzpatrick in particular for steering us through this work and specifically for setting out the importance of the difference between therapy and practice, and I agree with him, Willie Rennie and Emma Roddick and others that those practices are of no benefit and therefore are not therapy. I strongly welcome Gillian Mackay's words that LGBT people are not wrong and do not need converted and the member's clarification on what the ban does and does not do in relation to trans people. I also thank the convener for setting out the committee's strong support for the comprehensive ban. I note some of the comments made in the chamber, acknowledging the concerns raised by some religious organisations around potential conflict. I want to address some of those concerns and state clearly that undermining religious relationships and support is not at all what legislation seeks to do. Indeed, many people spoke to the committee of the need to ensure that they can live how they are and embrace their faith. Instead, this legislation would seek to create the best environment for religion to remain a positive influence in people's lives. While much evidence of conversion practice has shown that it often takes place in religious settings, it cannot be ignored that religion remains a strong factor in the lives of many people and that for those whose sexual orientation or gender identity does not marry up with their religious views of those around them, it is an incredible difficult situation to feel that there is a need to choose between those two things. Indeed, my colleague Paul O'Kane has said that it is horrifying to have to make that choice, which is exactly why we must protect belief by supporting people to continue to express it but also protecting LGBT people's rights to be able to be who they are. I thank my colleagues on the committee again, including the chair of the committee, for setting out that the committee shared that view today. I speak in this chamber often about my commitment to human rights, a commitment that I believe should be shared by all of us and I know is shared by many of my colleagues across those benches. I want to offer reassurance that human rights, including the protection from torture and abuse, which legislation could seek to protect, do not and should not contradict each other. In this case, I am equally as committed to protecting article 19 of the Human Rights Act and the protection of freedom of thought and religion. I think that it is poignant to note that far too often in recent times human rights of different groups have been weaponised and held up as direct contradictions to one another, but that is not how human rights work. They are indivisible and interdependent and interrelated and only where they are treated as such can they be truly enjoyed. I want to recognise the Scottish Government's intentions and place on record that I welcome the minister's commitment to progress a ban as soon as possible and to follow, as Megan Gallagher said, many other countries in doing so. I also welcome the minister's commitment to use the committee evidence as a cornerstone of the Government's approach. The evidence that our committee heard and the report is produced as comprehensive and detailed. Further probing for more evidence, particularly for those with lived experience, could re-traumatise people. My colleague Karen Adam spoke passionately about the impact that evidence had on us as third parties listening to it. Imagine how hard it is to live it and relive it. I, as Fulton MacGregor and Alexander Stewart have also said, understand the need to work with the expert group to refine the legislation, but urge that it does not duplicate or delay work. I will close by suggesting gently to my colleague Craig Hoy that we do not wait to see if the UK Government's legislation goes far enough and by quoting Vic Valentine from the Scottish Trans Alliance, who told the committee that we have the powers to act now without waiting for the UK Government to act. He said specifically that the bulk of the legislative aspect is about the criminal ban, and that would be fully devolved to the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Parliament has been bold and progressive before. In fact, we are doing exactly that with other progressive legislation right now. We can, and I believe, will be bold again. So let's not wait any longer. All five hallowed parties committed to abandon conversion practice in their manifestos, and that commitment has been reiterated in the chamber today. The will is here, the motivation is here, now let's have the legislation and can sign conversion practice to the history books once and for all. I am grateful to be closing this debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. As a member of the Qualities and Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, I would like to begin by expressing my gratitude alongside my colleagues from the committee to the witnesses for sharing their traumatic experiences of conversion practices. The member, Pam Duncan Glancy, talked about the bravery of some of the survivors, which I want to echo. Your bravery will go a long way in preventing, protecting and supporting individuals who would potentially be or have been subject to conversion practices. We heard from the member, Karen Adams and Willie Rennie, how those practices can cause great psychological stress and long-time harm and are cruel and torturous. The member, Paul O'Kane, also said that conversion practices are dangerous and cruel and leave long-lasting damage. The witness testimonies that we heard were heart-wrenching and, in some cases, horrifying. One witness said that it can totally strip away all the good bits of you and leave you de-osiliate and completely isolated when the witness was in the darkest moments. He went to the fourth bridge twice and looked over the edge. The Scottish Conservatives believe that conversion practices are shocking and unacceptable and we therefore wholeheartedly support an effective comprehensive ban on conversion practices. That was also highlighted by Fulton MacGregor and Joe Fitzpatrick today. Conversion practices should not be acceptable in Scotland and should be banned. They have no place in Scotland. I appreciate that creating robust legislation can be time consuming. However, as we heard from my colleague Alexander Stewart, the ban itself and subsequent criminalisation is a devolved matter and so I would like to see more timely progress made on the legislation by the Scottish Government. It was welcoming to hear from the minister the work that they will work with the committee through the expert group and agrees that it is essential to act now as those practices are harmful. Throughout the consultation, I wanted to grasp how conversion practices affected minority groups. The consensus is that conversion therapy presents itself in many different settings and manifests itself differently depending on factors such as background, ethnicity and religion. As such, we established a deep need to connect with those often unreachable by mainstream services. Third sector organisations such as Hidde, which are practically tailored to those in honour-based cultures and will be key to reaching supporting individuals. In many cases, the committee heard victims were LGBT individuals of faith, which is why striking a balance between freedom of religion and banning conversion practices is so important. Many individuals seek comfort, understanding and hope for religious settings and we do not seek to discourage neither pastors nor individuals from this relationship. We welcome commitments by the Scottish Government to work alongside religious and community leaders to ensure that religious settings still feel confident in their ability to provide care for LGBT individuals of faith while ensuring that the law is robust enough to prevent conversion practices. John Mason spoke about the state needing to be very wary that, if people are just going there to pray, many members, such as Emma Riddock, Gillian Mackay, talked about the importance of the right definition and that theory is not maybe the right definition to be used. Despite legislation being in place to prevent domestic abuse, it still happens. Despite legislation being in place to stop FGM, it still happens. We know that in many cases conversion practices take place underground or behind closed doors. So, for any forthcoming ban to be too effective in stamping out conversion therapy, there must be an effective whistleblowing mechanism and oversight in place that these can be implemented prior to any legislation. I have asked during the committee proceedings who should be responsible for such oversight, whether that should be a public body or a third sector organisation. I would ask the Scottish Government to consider that at this stage. We have heard many thoughtful contributions across the chamber today. My colleague Crey Hoy raised the importance of working cooperately across the UK to ensure consistency and safeguards against conversion practices. My colleague Megan Gallacher rightly states that we have the opportunity now to consign conversion practices to the history books. First, the Scottish Conservatives fully support a ban on conversion practices and are committed to working cross-party to ensure that the legislation is effective and works for everyone, especially those who have been let down. Secondly, while legislation has been developed, other mechanisms such as support services, third sector organisations and mainstream services can be actioned. Last but not least, education and awareness are key to the effectiveness of legislation. Any information campaign should be targeted and detailed. I want to, along with many of the members, Karen Adam, Alexander Stewart, Pam, Duncan, Glancy, Pam, Gozel, Megan Gallacher, Willie Rennie and Fulton MacGregor—no doubt others—to thank the people who gave their testimony to the committee work. I think that we could never express our gratitude enough for people who have been through such a horrendous situation to bring that to us, to help inform us in the work that we have to do and to help us to move forward with that, but always being mindful of the impact that it has on those individuals as well. I will make a couple of points on religious freedom. I am absolutely clear that we know those concerns around the potential impacts on religious freedoms, and those will be considered very carefully as we go along. Any support or understanding or ideas that come from across the chamber—my door and my ears—are wide-opened to hear all of that. Can I also pick up some of the points that Pam Gozel made in her summing up? I think that we will pick them all up and have a look at ways to do some of that, because you bring a different dynamic to the schedule of work that we have, but we will have a look at all of that and come back to you on that. I have also heard about the urgency of doing this and doing that with sensitivity as well, so hopefully we have the balance right on that, but no doubt members will tell me differently, and certainly our work with the committee will help to inform that too. I have heard lots of comments today, and many of you today know that we need to take the necessary steps. Both are legislative and non-legislative to end conversion practices in Scotland, and, like Gillian Mackay and Emma Roddick, I want to send a message to our LGBTI community today. We are valued, we are not broken and we do not need fixed. We are absolutely clear that these abhorrent and harmful discriminatory practices have no place in our society. As Megan Gallacher told us, 13 other countries and other states have already taken these steps, and we will look at all of those for learning and understanding to get our law right for the people of Scotland. We will take into consideration the recommendations of the expert advisory group and our human rights obligations to inform our viewers on the steps that are needed to ban conversion practices. I understand the concerns from Willie Rennie and Emma Roddick and others on the use of the term therapy, and that is why we have changed our language in this work to practices. I think that we need to make that absolutely clear to many members through being witness to that testimony, and the experiences tell us, remind us, how important this ban is for people. By the end of 2023, we will introduce our legislation within our devolved powers to bring forward a ban that is as comprehensive as possible, which has already been set out in our most recent programme for government and has also mirrored in the Bute House agreement. I really look forward to seeing the advice from the expert advisory group and others, and we will build on the recommendations from their equality, human rights and civil justice committee. Can the minister provide assurance that different religious groups will be part of the expert group, including BAME religion groups? Pam Gosw and I took part in the international women's day event here, and we pre-emptied each other, and everything in my next line is exactly about that work. We also want to show that everyone's voice, including all of the intersections like race, faith and other communities, is expressed by Pam Gosw. I took a clear note of that, but I think that you are absolutely right. Those intersections are incredibly important, a very important topic, and that is why, following the work of the expert advisory group, the Scottish Government will begin a full public consultation period, which will run right through autumn as well to get as many voices as possible. I can also say to John Mason that I hear him on the need for clarity on definition and the delicate balance that needs to be struck here. We are very clear about that as well, but it is also clear that we still have a lot of work to do to ensure that we build a Scotland where everyone feels safe to be themselves. The UK Government is taking forward its own measures for England and Wales only. We are committed to legislating separately in Scotland to ensure that the right measures fit with what Scotland needs. Like Pam Duncan, Glancy and Fulton MacGregor, I believe that the UK Government's proposals do not go far enough and to offer the protections that we want to see, but I am very keen to work with the UK Government and others to make sure that we get that right for Scotland. Collectively, we must get it right, and I am sure that everyone here will agree that we want to be on the right side of history and end this damage in practice once and for all. As we move forward with the extremely important work, I want us to all to continue to think about why this ban is so important. The protection of those is expressed most eloquently by Paul O'Kane in his contribution, who have experienced those insidious practices should be at the heart of everything that we do. We need to build the necessary legislative measures to stop the practices in their tracks and ensure that appropriate resources and support are in place for those who need the help. In responding to Craig Hoy's very eloquent speech, we may not be able to change the weather in Scotland, but we can certainly make it impossible for those practices to ever happen again, so future generations will know that this was a closed chapter of Scotland's history. Being LGBTI, as Karen Adam, Gillian Mackay and Emma Roddick remind us, is not a choice. As Fulton MacGregor said, the use of discrimination of LGBTI people across Scotland, whether it is in the mainstream media, social media or in community settings, the responsibility on all of us is to challenge that. To do so, it is essential that we preserve and promote a society where people feel accepted and able to explore their sexuality and gender identity without feeling pressure to suppress or change who they are. I am delighted to see the cross-party support and consensus today. I sincerely believe that we will reach those goals and I am sure that everyone in this chamber will play their part in achieving them, banning conversion practices in Scotland once and for all. Thank you very much indeed. Minister, when I call on Maggie Chapman to wind up the debate on behalf of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee for around eight minutes, please, Ms Chapman. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I am very pleased to close this debate on behalf of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, and I thank Joe Fitzpatrick and all of my fellow committee members for their thoughtful work on this issue and their contributions in this debate this afternoon. I am very grateful to all of the witnesses who gave evidence to the committee, in person, virtually or in writing, in particular special thanks to the victims and survivors who shared their experiences of conversion practices with us. Your stories were harrowing to hear and we recognise the courage that this took. I think that the committee can be rightfully proud of the inquiry that led to the published report, the production of which Clarks and others are expertly supported. It is significant, I think, that the committee unanimously agreed that conversion practices are abhorrent and not acceptable in Scotland and that they should be banned. I am pleased that contributions from colleagues around the chamber this afternoon concur, and I thank Willie Rennie and others for their kind words about the work of the committee. Presiding Officer, there are a couple of issues that I would like to highlight, especially given the correspondence that I and I am sure many other MSPs have been receiving since the publication of the committee report. I am grateful to all of those who have written to us to express their thoughts and concerns about the impact of a conversion therapy ban, particularly on other rights such as right to religion and belief. As a committee, we were conscious throughout the evidence gathering process to hear as wide a variety of perspectives as possible, including faith leaders, advocacy groups and NHS chaplans. A clear majority of religious organisations that we heard from are in favour of a ban of conversion practices. We are of the view that legislation should not pose any restrictions on ordinary religious teaching or the right of people to take part in prayer or pastoral care to discuss, explore or come to terms with their identity in a non-judgmental and non-directive way, while recognising that a significant number of conversion therapy cases are conducted in religious settings and often through the medium of prayer. Paul O'Cain described being both horrified and terrified by this, I agree, and I thank Paul for his powerful contribution. We do not want to ban prayer, we do want to ban conversion practices in whatever form they take. A significant number of faith and rights experts agree with us on this, as do most faith leaders. The Global Interfaith Commission on LGBT plus lives have had almost 2,000 signatories to their declaration, which call for an end to violence against LGBTQI plus people and their global ban on conversion therapy. Signatories include 14 archbishops, 78 bishops, 100 rabbis and various religious leaders from Sikh, Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu religions. Indeed, the UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Dr Ahmed Shahid, says that banning such discredited, ineffective and unsafe practices that misguidedly try to change or suppress people's sexual orientation and gender is not a violation of the right to freedom of religion or belief under international law. We welcome this clarity that there is no conflict between freedom of religion or belief and the protection of the rights of LGBTQI plus people. I hope that that gives some comfort to Alasdair Allan and John Mason and any others who have potential concerns in this area. In case the member thinks that I have concerns, I should be clear that I consider those so-called therapies to be unacceptable and harmful. I noted your intervention in one of the earlier speeches. As legislation proceeds, we are assured by what we have heard today that the Parliament will work with faith communities and organisations to ensure that in protecting LGBTQI plus people from conversion practices does not impinge on people's right to practice their own faith and beliefs. I want to echo something that we heard repeatedly from survivors. Often, where someone goes through conversion practices, including through prayer, it is not their faith or belief that motivates that. We heard from people who go through or pressured or advised to go through conversion practices often do so because of external pressure. Even if someone volunteers or consents to conversion practice, they are often in environments where this is coerced or expected from them. Some of the most common responses to the question, why did you try and change your sexual orientation, are because I believed that my desires were sinful, because I was ashamed of my desires, because my religious leader disapproved, because my friends or family disapproved, because it is not acceptable in my culture to be anything other than straight. We must protect Scotland's LGBTQI plus people from conversion practices in all of its forms, wherever and however it takes place. That may mean protecting them from the coercion, pressure or force of people around them, people who love them, people in positions of power who would try and change the unchangeable and tell them that they are wrong for being who they are. I thank Craig Hoy, Karen Adam and Emma Roddick for their passionate words and such clear articulations of this. Psychological torture is not acceptable. That is why it is so important that when legislating for a comprehensive ban, we must be clear that consent to such practices can never be informed and should not be available as a defence to those undertaking conversion practices, as Pam Duncan Glancy, Alexander Stewart and others have stated. We need to ensure that the legislation that is introduced is appropriately enforced too, as Pam Goswell and others have noted. I would like to pick up on another key issue. The committee is clear that legislation alone is not enough to address conversion practices. We need non-legislative measures, too, in order to protect and support victims and survivors. Such measures should include, but not necessarily be limited to, education and awareness raising across different parts of society, mental health support services for those who have experienced conversion practices, a helpline and a whistleblowing mechanism, and we should consider a separate and distinct reporting mechanism for children. The minister outlined the process that will be undertaken by the expert advisory group, and I thank her for that, and for the Scottish Government's responses to the committee's recommendations. I would stress, however, as others have done, that we need to move swiftly now. We must act to bring forward a comprehensive ban via a process that does not re-traumatise victims and survivors who have already told their stories and one that does not duplicate the work that the committee has already undertaken. I know that the committee is keen to work closely with the Scottish Government on this. Anything that we can do to shorten the timescale that the minister outlined would be most welcome. In closing, I thank all colleagues for their contributions this afternoon, for their passion, conviction and commitment to getting the ban enforced. I would like to speak directly to all LGBTQI plus people, repeating Gillian Mackay's powerful words. You are not broken, you are not sick, you are not wrong. You do not need fixed, or cured or converted because who you are is perfect. We will protect you from those who would try and change you. Let us make good on those words and act. That concludes the debate on ending conversion practices. It is now time to move on to the next item of business. Prior to doing so, can I remind members of the Covid-related measures that are in place and that face covering should be worn when moving around the chamber and across the Holyrood campus?


Sadhguru, I have a very difficult question. For me, it's a very difficult question. Generally, power corrupts everybody, including me. But I am now in a very special spiritual path because I am your devotee. I want to avoid power overruling me, making me corrupt, and I don't want to be slave to the power, whatever power I am having. Power is entirely corrupting the whole world, you know it. But I don't want to get trapped in that crazy thing. Can you advice me, Sadhguru? Namaskaram, Sadhguru? Power doesn't corrupt whoever said that. People are corrupt. When they get empowered, it becomes super visible. When they're somewhere, the microscope is not on them, so you don't see it. When they come to oppositions of power, their corruptions finds volume, a different dimension of expression. But someone who is not corrupt will not become corrupt because of this or that. First of all, let's understand what is corruption. The moment, fundamental definition of corruption, okay? Later on I'll come to the political definitions. The fundamental definition of corruption is just this. If there is something called as me and there's something called as you, corruption has started because what is me is more important than what's you, isn't it? Yes or no? Once me comes, what is mine and what is not mine will come. Once this is mine and this is not mine comes, corruption is deepened. If you get very attached to what is mine and what is not mine, then it's well established. Like this it goes on. So all I have been trying to do all these years is to make corruption galactic. The problem is it's happening small scale. So, all I have been saying is let us make corruption cosmic because the nature of who you are is such. You have to identify with something. If you identify with just this body, one level of corruption, then you will get married and identify with two bodies, another kind of corruption, corruption multiplied. There is a... there is a thing that used to go out, not anymore because things have changed now in this generation. In the previous generation when we were in school college, there was a thing going around in the universities, it's like this.  The moment you find employment, you become a socialist, you know? The moment you get married, you become a capitalist. The moment you get children, you become corrupt because when your identification is with this body, you already corrupt, but it's so small scale, nobody notices it. Or everybody accepts it, oh, it's natural. But when it becomes too, the corruption becomes little bigger. People can see the conspiracy. Family is the first form of corruption, yes? I'm not speaking against it, I'm just telling you. It is so because suddenly what is ours and what is not ours becomes important. Then comes community, then comes nation, then comes race, then comes religion like this, different levels of corruption. Essentially corruption means whatever thoughts of well-being, acts of well-being that human being is able to commit, he's excluding somebody, isn't it? Yes or no? Yes? Right now there is something here, I want to give little more to this person, little less to this person. This is corruption, isn't it? The more strongly you're identified with what is me and what is mine, you have become more corrupt. Only thing is, it may be the question is whether it is socially accepted forms of corruption or not.  If you make you the prime minister, your corruption will be reported in the media. Yes? Right now your corruption is not worth reporting because it doesn't have so much consequence to other people. But I'm saying if bucketfuls of tears will come, if your child's life is in danger and a whole lot of them running on the streets, not one moment of anything, that means you're hardcore corrupt. Yes or no? You don't like it? It's okay. Corruption is not always a conscious thing. Most of the corruption on the planet is because you're identified with something limited. Limited identity is corruption. The moment you're identified with what is me and what is mine, you are corrupt, essentially corrupt. If you become the prime minister, it will be visible to everybody.  Right now, between your right hand and left hand, you made one superior, one inferior. In this state, if you become a prime minister, isn't it? This is superior hand. This is inferior hand, you know? So in this state, how can you not be corrupt?  With empowerment, it becomes more and more visible. That is why we're aiming at the powerful and the people who are in positions of responsibility and power because if you at least make their identity a little larger, see, if you make your identity yourself, you will rob the person next to you. If you make your identity for your community, you will do good things to your community at the cost of some other community. If you're identified with the nation, you will do good things to your nation at the cost of another nation. Yes or no? But that is not perceived as corruption, but it is corruption. The whole world is full of corruption. One against the other all the time, isn't it? What is mine should do well.  This is corruption, isn't it? So, it is not that power corrupts. I don't know who said that. People are corrupt. With power, corruption finds expression. With power, everything finds expression. If you're intelligent, your intelligence will find expression. If you're loving, if you become powerful, your love will find expression. If you're corrupt, your corruption will find expression without changing the basic quality of who you are. You want to fix the outside? No. There is a tree which produces flowers. There is a tree which produces thorns. The more you empower both of them, one will produce more flowers, another will produce more thorns. So let's fix our pedigree fast properly. If you fix the pedigree fast, from where are you coming? Have you come from your biological identity? Or do you want to live here with your divine identity? That's a choice you have.  How can you not be? Because biology is a limited process. If you're identified with this, everything outside will be outside. If you're identified with the divine, when you say I'm a devotee, that's what it means, that I have dissolved all my limited identities and my identity is with only one thing. If it is so, you should become the prime minister of the world and it'll be great. The world will be fine, not one's well-being at the cost of another. Well-being as it can be for all life on this planet. That's when you're not corrupt, isn't it?