The third meeting of session 6 of the Equality, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. All members are here and Karen Adam, MSP, is joining us remotely on the Blue Gene's platform. Agenda item 1 is to agree to take items 5 and 6 in private, which is consideration of today's evidence. Are we agreed to take items 5 and 6 in private? A ä IG  suitable to be the continuation of taking evidence on petition PE18172, which is a welcome to the meeting for our first panel of witnesses, Megan Sneddon, policy and campaigns manager for Stonewall Scotland, Doctor Rebecca Crowther, policy for equality network, Vic Valentine, manager of the company of SCT I, and Paul Daley, Policy and Research Manager of LGBTI Youth Scotland. You are all very welcome. I was keen to hear a brief introduction from each of you. Megan, do you want to kick off? We have prepared a short opening statement between Rebecca and myself. I can just start with that. We would like to thank the committee for inviting us to give evidence today, ac yn ddymonwys cymhensiwn y byddai'r pethau ar y parlymydd. Yn ei ddweud o'r gaelio'r sgolwll ddysgu, ond y Gwladysgrinswyr, Yn Lgymhens i'r Gwladysgrin i'r parlymydd ar y byddai oherwydd mae'r pethau yn y ddysgu, oedd yn ei ddweud o'r sgolwll ar gyfer yr ymddwyll yn y sgolwll. Felly, mae'n wneud ei ddweud o'r prinsbyl ystod o'r pethau inconfertsion, ac mae'n fyddwch i'r cullwll i'r banhau cymhensiwn that will route out these practices and all their forms. Action must be taken to prohibit conversion therapy practices from being provided and promoted in Scotland in order to protect LGBTQ plus communities from harm. The UN's independent expert on the protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity has called for a global ban on conversion therapy in a 2020 report to the Human Rights Council. He stated that conversion therapy practices inflict severe pain and suffering and result in psychological and physical damage and are, by their very nature, degrading inhuman and cruel and create a significant risk of torture. He further states that these practices are in fact based on the incorrect and harmful notion that sexual and gender diversity are disorders to be corrected. The independent forensic expert group recognise conversion therapies as having no medical or scientific validity, no sound scientific evidence that conversion therapy in any form is effective in changing LGBTQ plus identities and no medical justification for inflicting on individuals' torture or other cruel inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment. We note that there is a united call across the LGBTI sector in Scotland and the rest of the UK to see an end to conversion therapy. We also note, as you have seen in the evidence responses to the call for views, the NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and the MOU Coalition, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Royal College of GPs, the Mental Health Foundation, the Equalities Human Rights Council, the Scottish Human Rights Council, Children in Scotland, Amnesty International and the Human Rights Consortium, the humanists, the national secular society and many religious bodies, including the Liberal-Jewish community, the Religious Society of Friends or Quakers and many smaller Christian denomination churches are all in favour of a complete comprehensive ban. We would hope that the committee would consider private evidence session if there are survivors who need that privacy. Several survivors did respond to the call. One said, I am a victim of a form of conversion therapy. I have struggled with my mental health and made attempts to take my own life. I do not want other LGBTQ plus people to go through what I did at school. It is hard to believe that conversion therapy can and does still happen. Being cast out and isolated had a deep and long-lasting impact on me. Some LGBTQ plus people can be extremely vulnerable and feel isolated because we are already part of a minority and pressure to fit into a religious community. It can be a powerful driver in people feeling like they should change or suppress the fact that they are LGBTQ plus. I have been so damaged by prayers. Vic or Paul, do you want to make an opening contribution? I am happy just to go into questions. Obviously, there are a fair number of areas that we want to ask. With four members in the panel, it will take forever if every question is answered by everyone. I will try to take an indication from yourselves as to who will answer any question and if you just make a signal of some sort. I know to bring you in. Some of the committee members might particularly direct a question at one person or another. The first question that I asked last week and I am going to ask it again this week is from the evidence that we have received in writing. There are a lot of people on both sides actually, whether they are in favour of a ban or against a ban, who are making it the point that it is really important that we define what we mean by conversion therapy. Obviously, before you are going to ban something, you need to know what that something is. I wonder if we can start with that. Vic, do you want to kick off? We agree that it is really important to define conversion therapy in a way that is clear so that people know what it is that they should and shouldn't be doing. We think that one of the best examples of where this has already been done is in the Victorian legislation that recently passed. Essentially what conversion therapy is all about is that it is about a approach to LGBT plus people that has a predetermined outcome built into what it wants to do to somebody and it wants to change or it wants to suppress either their sexual orientation or their gender identity. It is not about providing space to support or explore or talk to someone about how they are feeling or if they are struggling with their identity. It is not about working through with them what steps they might want to take or how they might want to live their life to come to peace with who they are. It is very specifically about going into those conversations or those practices, knowing in the person's mind that being LGBT plus is something that people consider unacceptable and seeking to change or suppress that in some way. Just to add to that for clarity that we are talking about all directive practices that seek to change that are without consent. We are not talking about gender affirmative supportive healthcare, that is a good thing. It is not intended to prevent supportive pastoral care or explorative supports or prayer that does not seek to change and this is not inclusive of non-directive counselling or therapy nor is it inclusive of conversion to Christianity or any other faith as long as this conversion is not trying to encourage changing or suppressing one's sexual orientation or gender identity. Thank you very much and thanks for coming this morning also just to declare an interest. I supported the campaign to end conversion therapy in all its forms. The committee has received various different suggestions around the concern that some medical practitioners might be criminalised if they do not affirm a young person's gender identity. Rebecca, you mentioned a moment ago about inclusion in that near definition. What is your response to that particular suggestion? Would the definition of conversion therapy provide clarity on the type of practice that is and is not acceptable from the medical profession and I have a couple of others but I will come back to them. I think on a base level we agree that any support in exploring someone's gender identity is positive. People often need support through exploring their gender identity. It is not an easy situation for most people so we do agree that that is a great thing to do. There is a lot of talk about this kind of staunch affirmative and only affirm and no questions to be asked, which is normally the case in most conversations about someone's gender identity within services. Vic is probably the best person to answer this question, so I will pass over to Vic. I think that sometimes people can misunderstand what the word affirmative means in this context, so I think that people rush to the assumption that that means that if you were to approach a medical professional and go, I think that I might be trans, that they are expected to respond with, yes, you absolutely are fabulous. Instead, in fact, I brought along what the American Pediatric Association defines affirmative therapy as and they obviously work with trans and gender diverse young people in America. It is appropriate care that is oriented towards understanding and appreciating the youth's gender experience, a strong non-judgmental partnership with youth and their families to facilitate exploration of complicated emotions and gender diverse expressions while allowing questions and concerns to be raised in a supportive environment. What we mean by affirmation is we mean that if someone has questions or concerns about who they are, a medical professional responds to them with care and empathy and goes, it's okay that you're feeling this way and we can explore that together and see what it means for you. It doesn't actually necessarily mean that you are directing someone in either a kind of pro-transition or anti-transition direction at all. It's just about holding the space for them to find out who they are and make sure that they can come to that decision themselves. Thank you, that's really helpful. I have another question on the comprehensive ban and the definition. In the submissions that you've spoke about, the need for a comprehensive ban, what would you consider that specifically to be? Do you think it likely that the UK Government will bring a comprehensive ban when it introduces legislation to ban conversion therapy, and do you have concerns around the Prime Minister's reference, for example, to gay conversion therapy as opposed to LGBT conversion therapy? By comprehensive ban, what we say when we're referring to that, we're talking about conversion practices that cover both sexual orientation and gender identity, so protecting all LGBTQ plus people. We're talking about conversion therapy, a ban that protects people of all ages equally, so children and young people, but also adults as well. It also covers practices that occur across all settings, whether that's public settings, private settings, whether that's faith-based settings, health settings, domestic settings. The most important thing for us is the motivation and the intention to try and change or suppress someone's sexual orientation or gender identity and not sort of where that takes place or who is sort of conducting that. We also don't want to introduce any other restrictions on who can be projected by a ban on conversion therapy, so for example those who are said to have consented to the practices, for example. So we're keen to ensure that there's no loopholes in who can be protected by this legislation. In terms of the UK Government, we're still unsure what those proposals will look like. We're, of course, aware that the Government's committed to banning conversion therapy. It seems like that that will cover sexual orientation and gender identity, but the consultation on those proposals is likely to open up at the end of September or the start of October and run for six weeks, so we should have more of an indication through that process what those proposals are and who they will cover. We're keen that the Scottish Government develops a policy position on how it wants to see conversion therapy banned, setting out those red lines so that we can mark that against the UK Government's proposals and maybe set the devolved action. However, I note that in the papers we were interested to see the comments from Kimi Badanock to the Minister for Equalities and Older People, stating that the territorial application of the ban is likely just to be for England and Wales only, apart from in reserved areas where that would apply to the whole of the UK. I think that that gives us an interesting indication that we will probably likely need legislation in the Scottish Parliament and we hope to see the Scottish Government developing their position on that. As part of a comprehensive ban that we think will be effective, we're hoping to see other bodies of work alongside a legislative ban that will include awareness-raising, working with face leaders, working across different cultural spaces, working with different communities that will come at this from a completely different perspective. Those who have suffered conversion therapy within different communities and different cultural backgrounds will have very different experiences of what that looks like. Another reason why it's very important is that we think for you to engage with survivors. We're also hoping to see some civic work in terms of investigations in the Victorian bill that passed in Australia last year—or was it this year, sorry—they have given that right to unequalities commission, which we would suggest could perhaps be the Scottish Human Rights Commission. They don't have those powers now, though we note that in the human rights report, but the task force suggested that the SHRC could have more powers like that to explore and investigate. We think that education is very important. We know that Karen Adam has some interest in education and might want to ask more questions there, but I think that it would be a mistake to not do that wider work because cultural sensitivities have to be recognised, otherwise it could potentially just drive things further underground and further alienate and harm the community. Fulton, do you think that the area that you were going to ask about is connected to that? I think that we have a good cover on that. I was thinking that as well. I'm sorry, just the same as Pam Duncan-Glancy. I'd like to declare an interest that I also signed up to the campaign during the election campaign. Megan, you've given quite a good run-of-it already, and I don't want folk to have to go over things, given what the convener said. I wonder if any of the other panel members are wanting to talk about the complexities of the legislation. I suppose what I mean by that is what the UK Government is likely to legislate on, what we can legislate on and how that might interact, where it might hold us back and go further, and where it might actually present opportunities as well to possibly go further. I wonder if the convener wanted to pick up on that. Either elaborate on the points that were already made or bring some new points to the deal. I think that potentially one of the two main areas that might be reserved would be around any protection for abduction from the country, removing people from Scotland to undergo conversion therapy elsewhere, and also an approach to regulating public bodies that was above and beyond the existing memorandum of understanding between many health organisations already. However, we would say that the bulk of the legislative aspect of it, because, as Becky says, a lot of the wraparound stuff and civil stuff is potentially of significantly greater importance, but the bulk of the legislative aspect of it is about the criminal ban and that would be fully devolved to the Scottish Parliament. On that basis, do you think that we don't know exactly what the UK Government legislation is going to be in this area, but I think that our panel last week we heard some tentative concerns about how it might be impacted by certain lobbying so do you think that, based on what you said there, there's a scope for the Scottish Parliament to go further and be more robust in the legislation? We bring out, be on the mind that we don't know what the UK Government legislation is going to be about, but given concerns that have been raised already on the record to risk them out. I certainly don't think that there's any reason to specifically wait for the UK Government's proposals and to try and do it jointly via things that come out at Westminster, it's definitely fully within this Parliament's powers to enact a criminal ban. Given that the committee is putting so much effort into hearing views and engaging with people, to me it would make perfectly good sense and, in fact, be a really positive thing for you to shape the direction of what that ban might look like in Scotland, rather than waiting on Westminster who we don't know exactly when that legislation will be delivered or exactly what it will look like. I can see by your colleagues nodding their heads at their very much in agreement, so thanks a lot. I also signed the in-conversion therapy campaign during the election campaign. I want to pick up on a couple of things that you've said around cultural sensitivities around the definition being all-encompassing, including behaviour or activity that is with or without consent and the notion of partnership working. Look at those perhaps with particular reference to religious and faith groups and how or where you see the tensions between religious and faith beliefs, understandings and practises. I think that that with or without consent particularly could be quite tricky and may cause concern for some faith leaders. So, if you could say maybe a little bit more about that and if you think there are any exceptions that we need to consider specifically around the expression of religious freedoms. I took the time to read through all the responses so far that were published, all 426 of them. Something that was frequently coming up, particularly from religious people and from religious groups, organisations and those that support religious LGBT people, is this question about religious freedom. The concern that most people seem to have around that is the right to prayer and freedom of speech, which is something that we've come up against within the hate crime bill as well. We are all for freedom of speech and we're certainly not anti-religion. We're certainly very, very happy and open to people praying with people, supporting people pastorally, as Vic said, and engaging empathically. I think that the line that needs to be drawn is when that treads into coercive control or upon people in a direct and kind of a gender-led way to change that person. I think that there is going to be some task to get that definition right, but I think that most would agree that if you know that you're actively doing something to someone in the hope that it will change who they are in a futile way, because we know that we can't change LGBTQ identities, then you know that that's wrong. Banning that or involving that in the legislative ban wouldn't encroach on religious freedom as far as we think. Nothing within everyday religious practices or church practices should change or would change. People can give a sermon or speak to their followers or lead a church service and say basically whatever they like as long as they're not actively trying to change who somebody is, either in a private space or in one-to-one way or through calling people out within those services and inflicting harm on those people. We know that prayer is lesser than electroshock therapy or whatever, but we certainly know through reading the evidence that prayer is harmful. It can lead to feelings of self-doubt, isolation, minority stress and that leads to mental health problems and could lead to acute mental health problems and suicidal ideation, so it's all as harmful to a degree. I think that a key defining feature of conversion therapy is the fact that it has that predetermined one directional outcome to try and change or suppress someone's sexual orientation or gender identity. On the contrary, supportive, affirming or neutral therapies or prayers or faith-based practices that allow people to come to terms with and understand and accept their identity is an entirely different thing and should be encouraged and faith leaders should be encouraged to be able to provide that sort of spiritual support. Just a note on consent as well, so it's certainly echoed the comments from last week that people shouldn't be able to consent to abuse. I think it's important to consider the question of why people would agree to conversion therapy because there are many LGBTQ plus people that will feel uncomfortable about that and find it difficult to accept that and will want to change that identity. That's because of the views of society and the marginalisation and the stigmatisation of those identities. Conversion therapy is another form of repression and another form of discrimination and I think that the state has a role to step in there. I think that there's also the question over whether people can actually give informed consent. We've recognised the evidences that conversion therapy is not effective but is harmful. A report by the independent forensic expert group, which functions under the international rehabilitation council for torture victims, concluded that for an individual to give informed consent to conversion therapy, that would require them being informed about the practices that will be applied, as well as their ineffectiveness, the likely physical and psychological harm that will result and the inability to achieve the desired result. We'd note that in the Victorian law as well, they define conversion therapy as practices with or without someone's consent and the current New Zealand bill that's currently going through their Parliament. They have a provision that there is no defence for the person that haven't given consent to that treatment. Thanks. Just to add on the point really briefly on religious freedom, I'd just like to draw the committee's attention to the response from Amnist International, the Scottish Human Rights Consortium in Just Rights Scotland, who quoted from the UN Special Rapporteur who says, discrimination and violence against LGBT people cannot be justified by religious beliefs. The state is a responsibility to protect life, dignity, health and equality of LGBT people. And banning such discredited and ineffective practices is not a violation of the right to freedom of religion or belief under international law. Thanks all for that. Just, I suppose, going a little bit further, in your view then, who has the responsibility for ensuring that people who may be the victims of coercion and the sort of non-consensual approach that Megan was talking about in a faith-based setting, whose responsibility is it to make sure that those people know what's happening is wrong? I suppose that it comes back to the point about education, but also around collective responsibility within society. I just wondered if any of you had anything else to say around that, because if people don't know that what's happening to them is wrong, how can they get support, how can they get out of that situation? I'm just going to add one comment and then I'm going to pass over to Paul because I know that he'll be very keen to answer this question. We would think that it might be a good idea for the committee to speak to some within the women's sector, who have a lot of experience around domestic abuse and really understanding coercion and how that works, and also how they message to survivors or people who are suffering within conversion. I think that they might have something useful to say about that. I mean, it has slightly been covered, I think, by Beck earlier on, but in Victoria, the bill puts obligations on to the commission who have a role to receive reports on institutions that are undertaking conversion therapy and to investigate and to educate. There is definitely a role for emboldening the institutions that we have here, but to ensure that they are able to visit establishments and educate people who would be given conversion therapy. There's been a couple of folk who have mentioned Victoria, so I wonder if I could bring Karen in, whose question I think is maybe relevant to that area. Good morning, and I'll declare also that I supported the campaign. Just to note internationally, there has been a momentum towards a ban, although there are some countries who have committed to enacting a ban but have stalled at the consultation process. For some nations, there's not the political or cultural will to counter this form of torture. I was just wondering, from your perspective, do you feel that there is the political and cultural will here, and if I may come back in with a supplementary, if that's okay? Who wants to take that first? Meghan? Yes, so we warmly welcome the five parties that were elected to Holyroods in this election and all committees in one form or another to banning or ending conversion therapy, so I think that that's a really good starting point for this session of Parliament. Anyone else? Any other wider international observations? No, okay, Karen, back to you. Yes, so it was just to say that it comes back to that education. I think that Rebecca touched a point, a few points there, with the outreach work, partnership work with organisations who perhaps fear the consequences of a ban. It was just in terms of the misconceptions that they have around the implications of a ban affecting their freedom of speech. How we can get the balance right there and get our point across that there's perhaps the freedom of choice angle as well, because we can see how this is affected. I'm pulling that in from the international perspective here, seeing where we're looking across and seeing internationally what has stalled and what has affected that ban, and what are we learning from that and pulling in here in Scotland. Okay, Rebecca? I think it's... When we're thinking about best practice or how things are working internationally, it's really difficult to garner that, which I think is why all of us just kept our mouths shut there, because the Victorian legislation is the only legislation that's been fully enacted. It was only last year, and we don't have any kind of longitudinal studies of how that's affecting people and how it's going, if it's going well, how it's affecting different culturally diverse communities, of how education is landing within those communities. It's very hard to make comment on that. I think that we would all encourage and would hope to see as an engagement with groups that represent diverse communities. The liberal Jewish community in Edinburgh had responded to the consultation. Hediah, who support and advocate for Muslim LGBTQ people, responded to the consultation. We're aware that there are some churches in Glasgow who are putting out videos on YouTube allegedly of engaging in conversion therapy within the community, which is a predominantly African community. Those groups are the best place to speak on behalf of how you might educate their community or work with community elders. Another thing would be great if you were able to speak to the SHRC, who have done a lot of research into the different legislation around the world and how that implicates within human rights, because obviously we know that in Scotland there is a bid to move towards a more human rights-based framework. I think that that's a really important way to approach that. Megan? Yes, just on this sort of international point, it is challenging because I think that maybe around 20 states in the US, a few states in Australia, so Victoria, Queensland and the Australian capital territory, and Germany and Malta are the sort of bands that we've been pointing to across the world that have gone through, but the challenge in looking at the longer-term effectiveness of that is that these bands have only been in place for up to about five years. As Rebecca mentioned, Victorian law was just passed this year, but there are a series of countries that are looking at this. I'm not sure where they're all in their process, but there's Canada, New Zealand, France and Finland, and of course England and Wales. However, it's important to recognise that Scotland would be one of the first countries in the world to introduce a ban on conversion therapy, and that would set us out as a world leader on this issue again. We should recognise the harms that these practices cause and take action off the back of that. Paul, you were wanting to come in. Maybe you could touch on as well what that might mean to young LGBT plus people, if Scotland was a world leader in this area. Just really quickly on the international situation first though. I think one of the difficulties with this is that we don't know the prevalence. It's really difficult to get a gauge of how many people this affects, and that's partly because of the way that conversion therapy works. It's all about shame, and it's all about hiding away and putting things in a box. We're not going to get the longitudinal studies of how this legislation in Victoria, for example, has an impact, because we didn't know what the baseline was, so we'll never know what the final outcome was. That's why it's so important that I feel that you get survivors to the committee and hear directly from them. We're all happy to come here today, but it's really important that people with lived experience get that opportunity to share that, because it's them, people like them, that impact will be felt with. On the impacts of conversion therapy on young people, the report on conversion therapy from the UN's independent expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity point out that young people are disproportionately subjected to conversion therapy. They point to a recent global survey that suggested four out of five persons subjected to them were 24 years of age or younger at the time, and of those roughly half were under 18, so it is a significant problem for LGBT younger people. Of course, the implications are life-lasting after that. The report recommended that the state takes up urgent action to protect children and young people and carry out campaigns to raise awareness amongst parents, families and communities about the invalidity and ineffectiveness of conversion therapy. Briefly, on education, there's also a bit of work to be done, not necessarily in the legislation, but the support of work around that and doing things in school to raise awareness, because schools and further education institutions might be the only safe space for young people that are experiencing conversion therapy. Their families might be part of the process, so it's important that they get some sort of safe space within school that guidance teachers, pastoral care teachers, have some kind of knowledge and some education themselves to be able to identify and support young people that are experiencing this. If I could just jump in just to have a few more points on the prevalence of this. I think this was mentioned in the last session with Blair and Tristan. The UK Government's national LGBT survey in 2018, which surveyed 108,000 people across the UK, identified the scale of the provision and promotion of conversion therapy practice in the UK. It found that 7 per cent of LGBTQ people in Scotland had either undergone or been offered conversion therapy, including 10 per cent of trans people in Scotland. Those figures included by faith or group, by a parent, guardian, family member, healthcare provider and other non-listed organisations and individuals, so it's important that whatever is done reaches all of those people. The 2018 research by the Ozan Foundation determined that 58.8 per cent of those who had been subject to such practice within the UK had been left with mental health issues. Of those, 68.7 per cent had suicidal thoughts and 59.8 per cent were left with depression requiring medication, 40 per cent indicated having committed self-harm, 32 per cent indicated having attempted suicide and 24.6 per cent were left with eating disorders. We also noted that last week, I think it was Pam that brought this up, that there are people within the LGBT community who are further marginalised and who may face more significant barriers, such as disabled people, who may have carers, who may not be able to leave the home without support, who may not be able to speak to other people. It's important that further marginalised people are looked out for here again and that there is another argument for listening to survivors. Megan, please explain. Just a very quick point on your question last week about whether disabled people are more likely to experience conversion therapy. I went away and had a look at the data viewer for the UK Government's national LGBT survey and found that, across the UK, 2 per cent of non-disabled LGBT people had experienced conversion therapy and that rose to 4.4 per cent of LGBT disabled people. There was a similar pattern in terms of those who had been offered it, but I hadn't taken it up as well. Thank you very much, Pam. Good morning, and thank you for coming along today to give evidence. Last week's session, I had a chance to ask one of the witnesses what kind of impact their proposals would have on the support that is provided by their religious leaders perfectly in regard to barriers of language and culture. Their answers were enlightening and that's brought me to my questions today. Blair mentioned that around 60 per cent of the respondents to the survey came from Christian households. Now, the one thing I want to make clear is absolutely, and it was mentioned last week as well, this is not fully just about religion, but Scotland is a very diverse place and it's crucial that this legislation reaches everyone for all religions, not just Christianity. No matter what we do, religion barriers exist and we all know that, that they're often hidden. Today, you've mentioned, Rebecca, about different communities and how we have to reach out to them differently. You've mentioned about cultural sensitivities and Paul, you've touched on basically how this affects people in different ways. Just on that, with that in mind, do you think that more research and evidence is necessary to support the ban on conversion therapy in Scotland? I've got three areas that you can think of. If so, what type of research is required and why? What about the outreach behind this? Or do you think that we should press on ahead with the legislation now and deal with any future issues surrounding religion later on, perhaps in a maybe secondary legislation? Or would you think, what role really does this Parliament or this committee have to educate people? I think that's three areas, yes. That's a lot. I tried to write down, I mean, I think my gut instinct is to say that, you know, call it what you like, research, evidence gathering, focus groups, forums, whatever. I think for the answer to all of those questions, I think, is to listen to survivors and to listen to survivors from multiple faith groups, to engage with multiple faith groups and to engage with the organisations that work with those groups, which isn't us, unfortunately. But, as I'd noticed before, a few of those groups have responded to the call for views. My gut is saying to, yes, press on, but press on, putting the voices of survivors at the very forefront. Regardless of the views of any faith, it's the people who have suffered conversion therapy that need to be heard in order for you to hear how much harm it's caused and to also hear from their experience within their own community. You know, I'm not a person of faith and I don't think anybody at this table is, so we don't have that sound understanding of different religions and the way these practices work within them. So, again, I would just say, listen to the survivors. Yeah, I would just note that. So, we've been involved in compiling some case studies from across the UK of people who have experienced conversion therapy, and they're available to view on the bank conversion therapy website. Those include stories from people from Christian backgrounds, from Jewish backgrounds, from Muslim backgrounds and those from non-religious backgrounds as well. So, I definitely would echo Rebecca's comments to listen to the views of survivors. Again, the national LGBT survey found that 4.2 per cent of Christian people had experienced this, but then the figure rose for Jewish people, people of Hindu faith, and then highest for Muslims. So, definitely, we need to make sure that we're engaging with survivors from across our diverse communities, and that those additional measures that we're putting in place around education, around outreach and raising awareness are reaching all of our communities and are available in different languages as well. Perhaps there's some learning that can be taken from other jurisdictions, so maybe we could look at Germany or Victoria. The committee may wish to sort of speak to those Jewish sections and see what learning they've had there. Just on the issue of engaging with different communities, meaningfully and communicating with them, I guess, there is a history of legislation that does so sensitively. FGM, genital mutilation, not my area of expertise, but there was lots of work done around that, I believe, to make sure that messaging got through and there was successful communication with communities that was meaningful and there are correct languages and things like that. So, it might be worthwhile speaking to communities that were involved in that and that were kind of impacted with engagement around that to see if there's things we can replicate. My comment was actually going to be also about FGM. Clearly, we spoke before we came. I had a conversation with one of the people at the Scottish Government who worked on that bill and one thing that we would hate to see here is not engaging with cultural sensitivities and not engaging with diverse communities because all that will do is drive it further underground and further alienate and marginalise and cause harm. I did say that already, but I think that it's really, really important if people don't understand, are not aware of it, are not aware of the implications, believe that it is the right thing to do because so often that is the case. It's not necessarily intended to cause harm, but instead people believe that it's the right thing to do. It will just be more hidden and there will be more stigma around it. Thank you very much for your responses. In relation to what you just spoke about, Rebecca, we should press on with the legislation but there is further work to be done and we can engage with those communities. On that, do you think that the sort of work should be considered around the characteristics of race, religion, age, disability to identify particular issues from different groups so that we can see what's going on in different groups? If you were to look at this, how would your outreach or your research look like? 100 per cent, yes. I'm looking at it intersectionally and ensuring that you're recognising the different experiences, the different barriers, whether that's disability and you're speaking to Inclusion Scotland or speaking to Cure around racial equality and rights. Definitely that's really important because it is experienced so drastically differently. What was the second part of your question? I was just basically asking what the research would look like, obviously putting all those characteristics together. I'm probably the biggest advocate of qualitative research. I 100 per cent that think that experience and qualitative data is the most important in understanding this. This is something that does happen to a minority of people within the community so doing any kind of statistical research about it probably won't come up with much other than it happens and you still don't know how much because people aren't being open about it so I think qualitative research and again speaking to survivors and people across diverse faith backgrounds. Thank you convener and can I thank you for your attendance this morning so far that it's been very enlightening having the discussion that we've had. In your opening statement you talked about the identifying loneliness, the suffering, the damage and the risk that individuals go through and if I can tease out the further supportive measures that might well be in place to support and manage this because we have had suggestions that a legislative ban itself may not be enough to end the conversion therapy itself and the committee have taken some evidence already from organisations and individuals who have stressed that there needs to be a range of supportive measures in place across many sectors for this to be forthcoming and that may be practical mental health support. It could be education and awareness for survivors and the range of developments that take place across are regulatory standards for professionals within many sectors that they may be dealing with in trying to support them and it's important that we understand that. So can I ask you what you think should be and might be the further support measures that need to be in place to ensure that we can have a successful ban and also the repercussions from that ensuring that the conversion therapy can be ended? I think that the kind of wraparound measures outside of the legislation are just as if not more important because at the heart of all of this is about the harm that is done to LGBT plus people via conversion therapy and I think it's about providing support to survivors or means of allowing people who are currently being offered conversion therapy a route to escape having to undergo that in fact and so I think there's a kind of range of things that are important we obviously know that there will be people who've undergone conversion therapy perhaps quite far in the past but still experience enduring mental health difficulties so there needs to be support there around long-term mental health difficulties but obviously there also needs to be aspects of measures that look at people who are being offered or undergoing conversion therapy right now so a way to report what is happening to a body that is able to understand the implications of that and to advise that individual about ways that they can seek a route to escape what's being offered to them. I also think that advocacy is something that's really important for this we know for lots of survivors of traumatic experiences that the criminal justice system can actually be re-traumatising particularly if you're unable or you don't know a lot about how to navigate the system sometimes they can obviously be quite adversarial so having to kind of recount your trauma in a setting which is quite kind of targeted at finding out if you're telling the truth and can be really re-traumatising so I think having people who are able to help survivors and navigate the criminal justice system would be really really important there's probably a range of other measures that I've forgotten about but I'm sure one of my colleagues will pick them up. Paul? I think that the rapper in sport doesn't just come with when we get legislation it needs to start now. We are a youth work organisation and we've had people reaching out to us to talk about experiences that they've had and the more that this topic is raised in the media and social media things like that the more that people will kind of realise the experiences that they've had and the impacts of them and seek support and addressing them so absolutely there is a rapper in support that's needed but it's not just about something in the future it's about something that should have happened a long time ago and that we're dealing with at the moment. Rebecca? Just to add a wee comment that I'm sure you're probably aware of but this is something that we come up against a lot when we're talking about the LGBT plus community. There's still a lot of work to be done to understand how a lot of things affect LGBTIQ people's mental health and for many people they have been through so many things in their lives as LGBT people that have a long impact whether that's not being able to serve in the army to being criminalised for kissing for two men kissing for you know living through the AIDS crisis to minority stress to social prejudice to to living in a rural area and being not having the social spaces there's there's so much to try to understand of why the LGBT people are a community that disproportionately suffer from mental health and I think this is just a very small part of it. The Scottish Government is already doing work around Covid recovery and the mental health of minority groups and there's a forum that's looking at equalities in mental health and looking at the different protected characteristics at the mental health directorate so things like this can happen and as Paul said it can start happening ahead of anything else. And each of your organisations are there to manage and support and you all have your ways of doing that but it would be quite useful to get a flavour of how you identify to ensure that survivors are people who are at risk come forward and how you target that support to them because each individual is different and that experiences that they have gone through can be quite traumatic as you've identified and they may not wish to unravel some of that but others may be just looking to just unravel that and to get the support they need so how do you target to ensure that that balance is there in making sure that they feel they have the opportunity to come forward but also to get the support that they need? Yeah I mean we've got lots of ideas around that and we've had lots of conversations around that. Vic and I were speaking to a chaplain who's actually an NHS chaplain and also works in different churches and spaces around Edinburgh who agreed with us that we think it's positive that people are given the space to share their story but that you're right that it needs to be done in a way, in a space where somebody can handle listening to that, where somebody can responsibly listen to that and deal with you know quite often when people talk about trauma you're opening Pandora's box and if you open it and then you can't deal with what comes out then you're doing that person a massive disservice for the sake of policy work and that's one thing to say we're not a support organisation, we're a policy organisation primarily and we do community engagement yes but we we don't have the training to support people so if we were to encourage you to listen to these stories we would encourage a very safe space perhaps a one-on-one situation perhaps transcribing those spoken experiences and there being somebody that that's not in any way a psychologist because we don't want to further pathologise people but somebody that is a good active listener and is empathic and can take that story and handle it well. I don't think any of us provide proper support apart from maybe to young people. But we're a youth work organisation so we... Yeah I mean speak to LGBT health and wellbeing they might be a really good place to start we know that they've received many calls and are very adept at speaking to people about these kinds of things because as I say it's important that you they feel comfortable and we've already touched on culture and religion and other aspects today about disability and all of that adds to the complexity of the the weight that that individual may feel they have to try and break through and and want to express but they need to know that whoever they are speaking to is giving them that support and advice back that as you said you're not opening a new Pandora's box for them to try and create a bigger or more difficult situation for them in the future so it's about trying to balance that and I think each and every one of your organisations has an ability to do that it's just how it's co-ordinated to support you're doing it through the youth but that's your sector others are looking at a wider area of trying to manage that so I think it's important. Anecdotally that seeing yourself seeing the committee take this seriously as an issue has already made a difference to people feeling like they are going to be heard and that they might want to share their story you know I think a lot of people saw the petition at first and thought nothing would be done many people don't even think it was an issue in the first place but I think the fact that the committee have taken it so seriously and are here to listen to people's experiences and views has already made a world of difference so I do think it's about providing that space which is kind of what we as an organisation specialise in is just kind of facilitating those conversations bringing people to the table and allowing people the space to explore we're never going to be able to deal with everybody's trauma and you know we would hope that people felt the strength to come forward and if they don't we would encourage them not to you don't have to share your experience but we hope that there are people that will. Thank you convener. Okay thank you palm I wasn't sure if you had indicated you wanted back in. No thank you. Fulton I think your kind of last question we've covered a little bit but maybe you want to go in as a more. Yeah thanks convener I'll be very brief because I think I had a sort of round up question to finish on and I think that a lot of the issues have really been covered but I'll perhaps try and get a sort of specific angle. You've talked about you know who we might be able to hear from in order to inform the committee more and you've talked a lot about getting in people with lived experience which I personally agree with you I think it's very very important and I know that the clerking team in this committee and other committees throughout the Parliament are really really good at making sure that that happens in a safe space I know that from my previous committees of last session and I'm sure we'll make that happen but I wonder if you could maybe expand on what value you think the committee will get for it I think it's maybe obvious but it's maybe good to get to get that on the record what you think the value of that will be in terms of this committee taking this petition forward. I think you get clarity in a way that you won't get from organisations that are not within the religious arena who have not experienced conversion therapy ourselves. I think sometimes hearing the worst of a situation is the best way to gain clarity on what you need to do to prevent that from ever happening again. I'd just say as well and it maybe touches a little bit back on what Karen asked earlier. I think you're likely to hear from survivors to hear from LGBT plus people of faith and I think it's really important actually to remember that we certainly don't see this issue as one where there are kind of religious people on one side and LGBT plus people on the other side in fact overwhelmingly not entirely at all but overwhelmingly the survivors of conversion therapy are LGBT plus people of faith and I think that it will probably help to bring a bit of kind of nuance to that conversation and perhaps diffuse some of the sense that it's a kind of oppositional discussion because yeah exactly as I say actually the majority of people who are impacted by this are very much both LGBT plus and religious. Can I just say that I think that that point that you've made there has been made very clearly by both this panel and last weekend I think that's been really helpful to continually have that on the record. I'm happy with that. Okay well listen thanks very much we're almost at our time actually so that has been really helpful for the committee and obviously our deliberations continue and we've got a lot more evidence sessions on this petition to hear from not least from hearing from survivors an appropriate point so thanks very much. I'm now going to briefly suspend the meeting to change officials. Okay thanks everyone so the next item on the agenda is to hear from the cabinet secretary for social justice housing and local government. Cabinet secretary appears today to speak on behalf of both her portfolio and that of the minister for qualities and order older people. All of our panel two witnesses are joining us virtually today so I welcome to the meeting Shona Robison, MSP, cabinet secretary for social justice housing and local government who is joined by Scottish Government officials Nick Parton, unit head of connected communities division Emma Harvey, divisional performance manager for business support unit Elizabeth Campbell director deputy director for human rights and Jess Dolan deputy director for equality and inclusion all from the Scottish government. I refer members to papers four and five and invite the cabinet secretary to make a short opening statement. Thanks very much convener and good morning to the committee. I'm delighted to take on my new portfolio and I welcome the new and returning colleagues on your committee. I wish to acknowledge the strong position that we're able to build upon thanks to the leadership of the current and past ministers on equality and human rights and I'm sorry that my colleague Christina McKelvie can't be with us today for understandable reasons. I'd just like to take a moment to focus briefly on the on-going situation in Afghanistan. Scotland has a long history of welcoming people of all nationalities and faiths including those seeking refuge and asylum. Work is under way to ensure that people have the support and services they need on arrival and as they settle into communities and we're working with the home office, COSLA, local authorities, the Scottish Refugee Council and other partners provide people with the safety and security they need to rebuild their lives. Events in Afghanistan remind us of how important it is that we support human rights around the world. I look forward to welcoming the latest participants in the Scottish human rights defender fellowship that will be arriving from Brazil and Colombia later this month. Our experience over the last 18 months have also reminded us that equality, inclusion and human rights are a collective responsibility. Throughout the pandemic, inequality and human rights issues have been exacerbated particularly for women, minority ethnic communities, disabled people and older people. We've taken significant steps to mitigate those impacts, with well over £1 billion committed to efforts to support communities and individuals at risk during the pandemic. We've seen admirable examples of people coming together to support their communities and developing new ways of working. However, the situation has also exposed where we can do better and we have to continue to ensure that equality, inclusion and human rights are embedded throughout our work as we enter the next stage of renewal and recovery. Briefly, we've invested an additional £5 million in front-line services tackling gender violence. We've started development of a new five-year plan to tackle social isolation and loneliness, with £1 million in funding for organisations this year, and later this month we'll set out immediate priorities to tackle racial inequality, building on our learning from the disproportionate impact on our minority ethnic communities of the pandemic. Over the coming year, we'll consult on a strategy to mainstream and embed equality, inclusion and human rights better across the Government and wider society. A human rights bill will be introduced in this parliamentary session, which will demonstrate global human rights leadership in Scotland at the forefront of human rights legislation and, most importantly, practice. We'll reform the Agenda Recognition Act with a bill introduced in this parliamentary year and ensure that LGBT people are protected from the deeply damaging practice of conversion therapy. We'll review our equally safe strategy with COSLA to ensure that we're doing all we can to tackle the pernicious issue of violence against women and girls, and we'll implement our strategy with COSLA to end this destitution for those at risk due to immigration restrictions. We're doing all we can with involved powers to protect communities and support people, and later this year we'll set out progress on tackling hate crime before working with stakeholders to develop a new hate crime strategy. This will include implementation of the Hate Crime and Public Order Scotland Act 2021. That's just a brief outline, convener, of the work to come and I welcome the opportunity to give evidence today and take your questions. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary. We've got a number of areas that we're keen to explore with you. I don't think that we've got time to cover everything today, so we will almost certainly write to you with a few points that we don't pick up on, but committee members will focus on the areas that they're particularly interested to hear more from. One of the things that we'd be keen to try and pin you down a little bit more on is the timescales for legislation. You mentioned two bills in particular that you expected to come in, and one you said this parliamentary year. I wonder if you'd be able to give us any further indication about when we would expect to see legislation coming before the committee so that we can obviously as part of our planning for other work that we intend to do. We expect to move forward with the gender recognition bill in the spring of next year, so we'll be giving you more information about that. The human rights bill will be later in the session. It's a very complex bill, but good work is going on. Again, we'll be able to give you more defined timescales on that as we move forward. It is a very far-reaching piece of legislation, but good work is going on. Christina McKelvie just recently convened the advisory group that has taken forward a lot of the detailed work on this, so good progress is being made. Pam Goswell will come in a second in terms of the gender recognition proposals. In terms of the human rights legislation, if you said that work is on-going, would, as a committee, we expect to see some of that work and is that likely to be published, or will it be mainly behind closed doors as you develop proposals? I'm happy to write to the committee giving you more detail on the work so far, if that would be helpful. A lot of detailed work has gone on. Work is still going on, but there's certainly plenty that we could update the committee on in writing if that would help in terms of time. That would be really helpful so that we can work out what we are going to do prior to any legislation being introduced, as you say.  Pam Goswell. Good morning, everyone. My question is around gender recognition reform. Is there any way to tell from the individual responses what the level of support was for the draft bill? Thank you for the question. I hope that, when we are taking forward this bill, we can try to find as much areas of consensus as possible and to take forward the legislation in a respectful environment in terms of, particularly as we discuss the issues in more detail through parliaments. You might be aware that the first consultation showed that 60 per cent of respondents were in favour of the reform, and the second consultation thought views on the draft bill itself, so it took more of a qualitative approach rather than a quantitative approach. It asked things for example, around the age, whether it should reduce it to 16, and a number of other more specific questions around the bill. It's also not possible to have done an in-depth analysis of the 17,000 responses due to volume, and that's why it was only the organisational responses that were published that would have taken an inordinate amount of time, of officials' time, to have extrapolated all of that detail from 17,000 responses. That was the same approach that was taken on the first consultation on the issue, and it was the same process as was taken with the equal marriage legislation because of the volume of responses. Essentially, it's been independently analysed, which is important to note as well. This is an independent analysis of the consultation, and it has given a clear summary of views on key aspects of reforms such as the minima mate. It was just to come in on the GRA to ask if there is anything that the Scottish Government can do in terms of misinformation, because we are seeing now that there is some confusion in the public with things that are already in place in the 2010 Equality Act. We are getting to a place now where those misconceptions are leading to an ask of a rollback of legislation that is already in place. It's just to see what message there is there and getting out there in regards to there's no conflict between the GRA and women's rights and the difference between the GRA and the legislation, which is already in place. Karen Adam makes some important points. The second consultation tried to do that in trying to put out information and to reassure people that there is no conflict between the legislation and the rights of women and girls. The Scottish Government has brought forward a huge amount of work around protecting women and girls. That work continues with the misogyny working group, Equally Safe, which we might touch on today. It's hugely important. What it's trying to do is to make the lives of a small number of people that bit easier by changing the process by which someone can obtain a gender recognition certificate. Karen Adam makes a point that some of the debate seems to indicate a desire to move away from the ability to obtain a gender recognition certificate in any way whatsoever. I'm hoping that, as parliamentarians, we can focus the debate around the process of making it easier—a process that already exists, but with all the difficulties that make that small number of people's lives very difficult. It's about making the process a bit easier for those that it affects, and it impacts no way on the rights of women and girls. As we take that forward, we will ensure that that is the case. I just want to follow on from what Karen Adam said. Very similarly, this is a very sensitive subject. A lot of people out there are left with opposing views. You've talked about obviously 17,000 responses that you couldn't go through all of them. It would be pointless to sit here and pretend otherwise, but mothers, daughters and wives are all very worried that that will take away their protections. To me, it's about when you've talked about 17,000 responses and we can't go through all of them. How do you see the Scottish Government doing further consultation on this and engagement before its introduction? I'm mindful of what you've said, Cabinet Secretary, that you are looking at bringing this bill forward in spring. Is there any further work that we should be doing to make sure that we protect women's rights here as well? Can I say to the member that there have been two large consultations on this already, which have elisted a huge number of responses, as the member points out. A further consultation is not likely to resolve some of the polarised views on the bill that exists out there that the member has alluded to. I think that how we can best move forward is through that open communication, maybe challenging misconceptions and inaccurate representations and, of course, leadership in this Parliament. Again, there is no conflict between the rights of the small number of trans men and women and the rights of girls and women out there. I think that it is something that is very close to my heart as a lifelong feminist that we point out that the threats of women and girls are from abusive men and abusive men have never, in my experience, ever found the need to pretend to be a trans woman in order to abuse women and girls. We have to tackle men's violence in society and keep focused on where the real threat to women and girls comes from. Having said that, we will make sure that we take forward the bill, that we listen to genuine concerns and that there are protections already for single-sex spaces and services that need that level of discretion. That will be important to maintain and that has already been laid out. I quote, as we go forward, even though there is a divergence of views, that as MSPs, we can try to take some of the heat out of this and move forward in a way that turns the dial down on some of the rhetoric and actually looks at these issues in a calm and measured way. At the end of the day, we are talking about a small number of very vulnerable people whose lives can be made much better by this piece of legislation. I agree with what my colleague Pam Goswell said that it is certainly online that it seems to be a very difficult subject, but we have talked a lot about engagement in the number of responses. In 17,000, it seems to be a fairly large response, but I wonder if the cabinet secretary would comment on the most recent poll of this and many other subjects, which was obviously the recent election, in comment on the manifestos that were put forward by all the political parties who have been elected to this Parliament and how important she thinks it is that the Governments and parties commit to their manifestos when the Parliament restarts. I think that Fulton MacGregor makes a point that social media is not necessarily representative of society on a range of issues. I think that we all know that. My intention is to try and build as much consensus around that as possible within the Parliament. I think that there was a lot of consensus across most of the manifestos on that, in recognition that it is an issue that needs to be resolved. We need to try to build as much consensus around and tackle some of the issues that have been raised. If there are suggestions that have come forward on how the bill can be improved, how we can try to reassure people as much as possible. Ultimately, this is a piece of legislation to make an already process that already exists for gender recognition certification easier. In that debate, there are some who want to get rid of gender recognition certification entirely. I would hope that that is not where Parliament is, and I do not believe that it is. I do not think that any party in the Scottish Parliament wants that. Therefore, what we are discussing is the process for gender recognition certification and what that should be. The proposition is to make that process for certification easier for that small number of people whose lives are affected by that. By doing so, we can ensure that we safeguard the rights of women and girls in doing so. I have already referred to the exemptions around single sex services, and the penalties that will exist for misusing a system of gender recognition certification. There are safeguards there. We can discuss these in more detail. I would be happy to work with the committee to try to do that in an atmosphere that is respectful. I know that the programme for government last week announced that there will be an immediate priorities plan. I wonder if you can talk a wee bit about the immediate priorities plan and the ethnic pay gap strategy, and how you think that that will make a difference as quickly as possible to communities across Scotland. You will be aware of your role, and I was the convener of the racial equality cross-party group in the last parliamentary term. A lot of time for the organisations that are involved representing those communities, they feel that things do not happen. They feel that there is really good intent from the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government, but things do not always happen as quickly as they would like. I wonder whether the announcement last week will help in that respect. I thank Fulton MacGregor for his questions. The immediate priorities plan for racial equality was actually just published this morning, so it is hot off the presses. It is going to run for 18 months to 2023, and it sets out actions to tackle structural disadvantages faced by minority ethnic communities who have been disproportionately impacted by Covid-19. It includes the fulfilment of the recommendations of the expert reference group, as well as work going on across government to tackle racism. It will act as a foundation for the development of a long-term programme of systemic change from 2023 to ensure that about 2030 Scotland fulfills its vision of being a fair and equal country for all. Fulton MacGregor also talked about the issue of pay, and that is very important in terms of the pay gap. We delivered a public sector leadership summit on racial equality and employment back in March to address and take forward the recommendations by the Equalities and Human Rights Committee report on racial equality, employment and skills. We also unveiled a joint commitment to take forward the committee's recommendations and to make progress. We engaged in a comprehensive strategic review on racial equality policy, and we need to engage private sector employers around making sure that they are aware of the need to look at their own policies. A lot of work is being taken forward, but a lot of work is still to do. My question is still around ethnic minorities in deprived areas. I will ask about how the Scottish Government will do work with those groups that are disproportionately impacted by the pandemic. How can we help to guide that recovery? That is an important question. Part of the work that the Deputy First Minister has taken forward around Covid recovery is focused on listening to the experiences of those communities that are most impacted. DFMs undertake a number of engagements listening to those with lived experience, listening to what their priorities are in order to build that Covid recovery strategy that is based on the experiences of those who have been most impacted. I am happy to write to the committee with more detail on that work that the Deputy First Minister has taken forward, if that would be helpful. I have just got a touch on that. I just wanted to touch on that, as everybody knows. Through the pandemic, a lot of ethnic minority people were really affected, especially doctors and nurses that were on the front line. Is there any work that the Scottish Government is doing through that to see? Obviously, coming up with now Christmas coming up and hopefully not coming in and us going through the same sort of situation again, how do we protect our doctors and nurses from ethnic minority areas? I think that this is one of the issues that really did emerge from the pandemic, not least the work that was done that showed a disproportionate vulnerability to the virus. There is a lot of learning around that in terms of making sure that we understand the issues there and in terms of the future going forward. Those who are working on our front line may have additional vulnerabilities, but that needs to be taken into account in terms of the protections that are afforded to them in the workplace particularly. I know that, I think that Humza Yousaf has been doing work on this on the back of the emerging findings through the various pieces of research that have been done. Of course, it was quite a bit into the pandemic before a lot of that evidence started to emerge. I would be happy to write to the committee to furnish it with more information. Can I just check, Fulton? Were you going back in on this point or was it your next point? The whole mud-anger questions were all in the same area, so if that was right, I wouldn't supplement you. If that is okay, convener, and thank you, Fulton MacGregor, for allowing me. Good morning, cabinet secretary and others who have joined us. I met an organisation last week called Tellmama, and they were talking about the increased experience of hate crime by people from ethnic minorities. One of the concerns that they have is that they are seeing it more in a home setting or by neighbours and people in their very, very local community. That has a particular impact on the way that we use our hate crime legislation. Do you have any plans to look at that in particular? Do you have any plans to work, for example, with housing associations, to look at how we could start to address some of that? I think that that should be of concern to all of us. I would ask and I think that Lansi might be to write to me with some of the detail around that. All of our responsibility, including all of our organisations that register social landlords and local authorities have a huge role to play in supporting people within communities where there is an issue around their policies. In terms of breach of tenancy agreements, if there is anti-social behaviour that also has a racist element to it, I think that that should be taken incredibly seriously. I think that it is taken incredibly seriously by social landlords and so it should be. In terms of the hate crime legislation, clearly that is in place and there is aggravated offences. The police should be taking these issues seriously as well and I am sure that they are. I would be happy to raise this specific issue with the cabinet secretary, Keith Brown, in terms of the issues that have been raised, to make sure that, as we recover from the pandemic, those issues that are perhaps legacy issues of people being at home and some of the issues that have arisen out of that and also people feeling particularly unsafe in their homes with understanding more time is a very concerning situation indeed. I will certainly pick that up with Keith Brown and we can respond to Pam Duncan-Clancy if she writes to me with some of the detail on that. I was going to ask about the public leadership summit, so I was really glad that the cabinet secretary incorporated that into her previous answer because I think that is a really important thing. She will be aware that the predecessor to this committee had an inquiry on that issue in the previous term, so it was good to hear that the work has been taken forward. I wanted to move on to the Gypsy Traveller Action Plan and it is probably worth saying that Christina McKelvie, who is not here and Mary Fee from the previous session, were really big advocates of this area and I think that it is worth putting that on the record. I wonder if the cabinet secretary could comment on the current progress of the Gypsy Traveller Action Plan and give us any detail if there is any evidence that it is having a positive impact on the lives of Gypsy Traveller? I am happy to respond to that and to recognise the work that Christina McKelvie has done in this area. It has been very important indeed. We have made good progress on the accommodation actions in particular within the plan. £20 million Gypsy Traveller Accommodation Fund was launched in June of this year, which will be focused initially on the development of demonstration projects to establish model sites. As part of this, we are working in partnership with members of the Gypsy Traveller community and local authorities to develop a design guide for modern accessible sites. The fund builds on the £2 million short-term funding provided for public sites in 2020-21 as a sustained investment to support local authorities in site provision. Officials are currently organising the next community conversation, which is due to take place online later this month, where we aim to get further feedback and insight from community members themselves on our own on-going work and issues that are important to them. We will also take the opportunity to share an update on where we are with the actions that are out in the plan. I am happy again if it would be helpful to update the committee in more detail on that. Just finally, we are reconvening the ministerial working group for Gypsy Travellers before the end of this year, which will oversee the progress of the action plan. I am happy to keep the committee updated. Thanks to that, cabinet secretary. I think that the permission of the convener would be helpful. Staying in the same area, I wanted to draw the cabinet secretary's attention to a newspaper article that I have seen today on your colleague Christina McKelvie's social media, which is quite a shocking headline. It is referred to the UK Government in the headline that says that discrimination against black people and travellers is objectively justified with new laws. It refers to the documents that defend the disproportionate impact of police crime sentencing in courts built. I do not know whether, cabinet secretary, you have the chance to see that, so if not, I would not expect you to comment, but I wonder, broadly speaking, if I can seek an assurance that our Government in Scotland would not be seeking to have a similar response or ideology in terms of this, given all the work that you have just previously outlined. I have not seen that article, if he wants to pass it on to me, I would be happy to have a look at it. I think that I have laid out pretty comprehensively the ethos that this Government approaches any issue regarding hate crime or, indeed, the needs and rights of people from particular diverse communities. They should all be protected and we have taken steps to make sure that that is the case. The human rights bill is a further iteration of trying to strengthen people's rights, particularly those who are most vulnerable to hate crime actions. I hope that, given the flavour of the ethos of this Government, it is obviously for other Governments to defend their actions. It is all in the same area and it is also very current, cabinet secretary. I thank you for that previous response and I think that you were pretty clear and it was good to get that on the record. The last question relates to a matter that affects my constituency and many of those in the west of Scotland, particularly, I think, all over Scotland and particularly centres around specific football games. However, the issue is relating to an anti-Catholic or an anti-Irish racism that is sometimes seen now. I know that part of this is more of a criminal justice issue, because what we see in social media and some of the queries that we get in about it are about perhaps police action or whatever, but I wonder if you could comment on as part of the plans that you are taking forward and some of the action that you are taking, if there is any education around this sort of discrimination there as well, because I think education is going to be absolutely crucial if we are ever going to tackle this properly. Thanks, cabinet secretary, and that is my final question, convener. I thank the member for his question. I think that it goes without saying that Scotland is a diverse multicultural society and that diversity strengthens us as a nation and we're the better for it. There is absolutely no excuse or justification for hatred, bigotry or prejudice and we absolutely condemn anti-Catholic prejudice and anti-Irish racism. Fulton MacGregor makes a good point about tackling sectarianism within our schools and there's a lot of good work going on by a number of particular third sector organisations within our schools to try and tackle those issues. They are not easy to tackle, some of them are deep rooted and generational, but we need to do absolutely everything we can to tackle them and this government is determined to do so. My question is around disabled people's equality and human rights. The disbill employment gap, as you'll be aware, remains high at about 32 per cent. A number of disabled people still don't get access to the social care that they need and some of it's stopped and not restarted since the pandemic. The Fraser of Allander Institute has said that in Scotland we're not doing enough to enable people with learning disabilities to live safe, secure and fulfilling lives and tens of thousands of disabled people are still waiting on accessible homes. At the summit that the Government held with disabled people in December last year, it was noted that disabled people want a focus rightly given the serious discrimination and inequalities they face, a focus on actions as opposed to problems and continued plans and strategies. I welcome the Government's commitment to a disability equality strategy, but what specific actions are the Government going to take in the short term to address some of the issues that I've just raised above? Thank you to Pam Blancy for her number of questions. I'll try to cover them all. She referred to the disability summit last year, which was very well attended—over 100 participants. It was an opportunity for ministers to hear from disabled people's organisations and disabled people themselves in responding to the issues that were highlighted. We've got a wealth of information from that summit, and that will help to guide the development of the next disability equality plan. She mentioned specifically the issue of employment. The Fairer Scotland for Disabled People Employment Action Plan is now three years old, and it sets out the actions working with partners to deliver the ambition to at least half the disability employment gap by 2038. The second annual progress report, published in March this year, highlights the work that has been undertaken today in supporting the delivery of that ambition. It shows that the disability employment gap in 2019 was the lowest recorded in recent years. However, in 2020, that gap unfortunately widened, particularly related to Covid, I suspect, from 32.6 per cent to 33.4 per cent. We've got work to do, and we need to make sure that we take further action to address it. Pamdan Blasie also mentioned social care. That issue has been raised by stakeholders, as you would imagine. We have ambitious plans for the national care service, which she is more than aware of. Those will be important in restructuring our care services, but we need to make sure that people are supported. There is a licence to be lend from the pandemic, without a doubt, in terms of the vulnerability of the situation that people have found themselves in. Finally, on learning disability, we are taking forward a learning disability autism and neurodiversity bill to look at how we can make those improvements. There is a commitment to a commissioner, because we recognise that there is a particular vulnerability and the need for an office that will support the rights of those who are most vulnerable. Finally, on accessible homes, the member will be aware that housing to 2040 has a lot about accessibility and making sure that homes are barrier-free as we develop and deliver the affordable housing supply. It is important that those homes stand to test of time and are barrier-free, no matter what the challenges that someone has. A number of the actions that you outlined there are not necessarily in legislation. For example, the targets around accessible housing are not in legislation. There is still a kind of discretion, which I think reflects some of the inequalities that still exist for disabled people. You also outlined that there are plans for a national transition strategy. Can you set out why that would be a strategy and not a bill at this stage or a legislative right? It is important that we begin work on a new national transition to adulthood strategy to support disabled young people as they make the transition to adult life. That feels the right approach. We can keep those things under review and under discussion, but that feels the right approach to take that forward. I am happy to engage directly with Pam Duncan-Glasi on the detail of that as we take it forward. Thank you very much, Joe, for letting in. Cabinet Secretary, just a small supplementary. You mentioned something about looking at a suite of legislation or support for neurodiverse people. I wondered whether you thought it would be relevant to the scope of that work to include discussion around our approach to conversion therapy. I know that we have been talking about it in this committee around LGBTQ plus rights, but I think that there is an important issue around neurodiverse people who are challenged and people who try to fix them and whether you see that as being a legitimate area within the scope of that work. I think that I am probably going to reflect on that question, because it is quite a complex question that Maggie Tramp has just asked me. I would want to perhaps write back to the committee with a response to that rather than respond at the moment, because I would want to give that some perfect thought. Pam, do you want to just come in with another brief question? I do. It is on a slightly different subject, but it is actually on ending conversion therapy. Cabinet Secretary, this morning you have been aware and last week we have taken evidence on the need to end conversion therapy. One of the things that has come across quite strongly in that evidence is that we need to look at and set out the Government's policy intention in Scotland as soon as we can on that. Is it your intention to legislate to cover both sexual orientation and gender in conversion therapy ban, advertising of it and also not to exclude exemptions in the case of consent? We have been in discussion with the UK Government around this matter, because, as you are probably aware, the UK Government has said that it would be looking to legislate in this area. We have had communications with them to try and get some clarity around the scope of that, and we have said all along that if the scope of it does not go as far as we would want it to go, we would look to legislate ourselves. There are some complexities there in terms of devolved and reserved issues that we would need to work through, but we have been pretty clear. I did catch the tail end of the session earlier on, and it was obviously a very powerful testimony and evidence that was being given. We need to find out from the UK Government what their intentions are in more detail, but it still stands, as we have said, if the UK Government either is not going to legislate or is not going to go as far as we would want to, then we would bring forward our own legislation. Thank you very much for that. It was quite clear this morning that people think that a lot of the legislation on the ban is devolved to Scotland. Are you in a position to set out whether or not the Scottish Government's position is that it would include gender as well as sexual orientation in any ban here in Scotland? Will you include the advertising and the exemptions in the case of consent? I think that that is an issue that we need to reflect upon. I am not in a position to answer that at the moment, but I would like to come back to the committee to give more detail on those questions, if that is okay. Okay, thanks cabinet secretary. I am sure that we will be coming back to speak to you again about that issue. Alexander Cymru. I move on to the topic of older people. As we know, we have an ageing population and a large percentage of our society fall into that bracket. We did have the fairest Scotland older people framework and action plan that came out in April 2019, which identified a number of priorities looking at the outcomes for access to services, for the health and social care employment, financial scrutiny and housing. All fell into those priorities, cabinet secretary. Can I ask you for an update as to where we are with the framework and where we are and how likely our report is to be published? Obviously, the pandemic has had an effect on this report, but the pandemic itself has had a huge effect on the older population across Scotland. Well, yes, I concur. The member is right that the pandemic has had a huge impact. Let me just set out as brief responses as I can because there is on what is a very important area. Back in March, the cabinet secretary for social security and older people at the time wrote to the Older People Strategic Action Forum setting out the next steps of the important area of the Fair of Scotland for older people. There were 56 actions contained in the framework. We have been able to deliver or partially delivered 48 of those in total. That is a significant achievement, given the challenges over the past year and more. Officials will be providing a further update towards the end of this year, and we can furnish the committee with that if you would find that helpful. Some of the actions may have been superseded by work or policies that have been or will be implemented as a result of Covid-19, so we are quite mindful of that. We are collecting feedback from the Older People Strategic Action Forum on the framework action updates, particularly around the gaps that are actions yet to be delivered, so the ones that are needing more progress have been made. We have held sessions to hear about, reflect on the social renewal advisory board report and the review of adult social care. We have committed to providing stakeholders with an update on only outstanding actions by the end of this year. We recognise that there is work to be done to help older people to recover from the impacts of the pandemic, especially as they adapt potentially to new ways of living, if you like. The policy officials are working across Government to ensure that the voices of older people are being heard and the wider policy development spans a number of portfolio areas, and the importance of using the lived experience of older people themselves informs that policy making, and it is really important that we continue to talk to older people through the forum and in other ways as well. You identified, cabinet secretary, the progress that has been made so far, and you have touched on some of the potential new ways of working. I think that the pandemic itself has identified that the whole idea of technology and tackling, for example, loneliness or social isolation has developed quite rapidly over the past 18 months during the pandemic. There has been some work done, I believe, on intergenerational wellbeing, and it would be good to hear your thoughts on that. Those are two areas that are continually going to be developed over the next few years and probably during this session of Parliament. It may change our direction slightly as we tackle that and as we enforce and change the ways that we have done things in the past to ensure that we capture as many individuals who have fallen to the older age group. Also, the barriers to technology are a problem for some people, too, in that they do not have the full knowledge understanding of all the technology that is out there to support them and how we can enhance that and ensure that they are given that support, that training, that exposure to some of those to ensure that we can capture and support them as they go forward. That is very important. Quite relevant to that would be the commitment to start work to develop a new five-year social isolation and loneliness plan backed by 10 million pounds over five years. We know that that has been a real challenge exacerbated by Covid. We have recently allocated £1 million of funding to organisations tackling social isolation and loneliness, and I think that that intergenerational dimension that the member referred to will be an important part of that work. It is important that we take that forward. Connecting Scotland has also been working to ensure that those who are excluded from technology or having the right technology are supported to be able to make sure that they are able to take advantage of some of those opportunities. Digital inclusion through the Connecting Scotland programme has been really important. The funding has helped 5,000 older and disabled people to get online and tackle isolation and digital exclusion, which has been important. In all of this, cabinet secretary, there is a rule for the third sector and also social enterprise that they can support and come in. Can I ask what developments you are having with those sectors to ensure that you are marrying up some of the projects that are being proposed by them and yourself as Government to ensure that we capture all of those within the market? You make an important point, and we have funded partners with over a million pounds to tackle isolation for those in greatest need, including £100,000 for befriending networks. The role of the third sector and social enterprises has been so important, and I would like to pay tribute to them all for the work that they have done through the pandemic. Without their support, people would be much more isolated and much more lonely and much more vulnerable. The work that they have done has been important. There is a new social enterprise plan that is looking to support and grow the social enterprise network. That is also important in taking forward that work. I just want to say that I note the extra funding to combat gender violence, particularly as the pandemic did expose more so those vulnerabilities. It is absolutely vital funding, but I ask, coming in from the angle that the majority of those abuses are committed by men, what will be done not just to support reactively when the abuse has occurred but proactively to get to the root cause of that, coming in from what you could say a helicopter-type approach? For example, would that be within the remit of the misogyny working group? Karen Adam makes a really important point. First of all, just to reiterate, the protection of women and girls is an absolute key priority for this Government, equally safe, and sets out a very clear and decisive focus on preventing violence, advancing gender equality and tackling the underlying attitudes that perpetuate gender-based abuse. There is a lot of work going on in schools to make sure that boys and young men understand issues such as consent. It is really important, given a lot of the external factors and influences that impact negatively on the views and stereotypes that girls and boys hold, which can then be very damaging in terms of attitudes in later life. In August, we launched our Equally Safe at School online platform, which applies a whole-school approach to tackle gender inequality and gender-based violence. The website contains specialist tool kits and specialist resources for schools. Our partners at Rheat Crisis Scotland have been working with the University of Glasgow conducting research alongside the pilot and the final online platform. I am happy to furnish the committee with more information, but it is absolutely important work. We were able to provide new Government funding of £5 million to the front-line services to ensure that those affected can access the support that they need more quickly. That is part of the £100 million support to the front-line services over the next three years to support that important work. Karen, do you want to come back in? Sorry, that microphone is on and off. I just wanted to say thank you for that answer. It is particularly when I talk to groups that there is something that comes forward, a lot of equality groups and zero tolerance, that there needs to be a wider approach and approach from early years as well, in particular, changing the culture around that and that toxic masculinity and misogyny side of things. I thank the cabinet secretary for her answer. Just a supplementary. Cabinet secretary, you talked about the staggering increase that had taken place of domestic abuse during lockdown. Many communities and the police and other organisations and other sectors had to be much more robust in tackling some of that, because home was not a safe place, as you have identified for many of those individuals. The funding will go to support that, but there needs to be a much more crossover between agencies and organisations to capture some of that, because, as I said, they were all identifying in different ways and different means. Where were the ways in which that was collated and information was transmitted to other support mechanisms to ensure that lessons were being learned about how vulnerable some of those people were and the conditions that they were being put into? The member raises an important issue, and a multi-agency approach to tackling domestic abuse has always been important. It was particularly important during the pandemic. We know that, for example, the police were paying particular attention and looking at trends of whether or not there was information on the heightened levels and increased levels of domestic abuse from front-line organisations, but the police themselves were doing a lot of important recording. If you think about the changes that have happened over the past 10, 15 or 20 years of the way domestic abuse is responded to, the police is unrecognisable the way that the police speak domestic abuse compared to 10, 15 or 20 years ago. Working alongside other statutory partners and third sector organisations to make sure that there is wraparound support for the victims of domestic abuse—and, of course, this Parliament has been very important in changing the laws and reforming the laws and making it easier for people not just to report domestic abuse and for that to be taken seriously, but also to look at things around tenancy rights to make sure that it is not the victim that is being removed from their house and from their tenancy. The Parliament has done some good cross-party work in this area, and I am sure that it is an area that will continue to have that cross-party support going forward. Thank you very much, Joe. Thank you very much to the cabinet secretary for the answers that she has given so far. Can I just add my voice to the comments that she made earlier and put on record my very strong support for reform of the gender recognition act, saying that I as a woman do not think that it has any impact on my rights or women's rights in general, and I think that there is no conflict between those rights and measures taken to let trans people live as who they are. I want to ask just a couple of questions on new Scots refugees and support available for them. I welcomed the first comments that you made about your unequivocal support for Afghan refugees. If we look at the new Scots refugee integration strategy, it is coming to the end of its life, it comes to an end next year. Can I ask for a little bit more detail about what plans, in addition to the £500,000 to provide support to local authorities to accommodate more unaccompanied children? What plans does the Scottish Government have to refresh and expand the strategy, especially in light of increased demand around refugees coming from Afghanistan? I thank the member for those questions. The second new Scots refugee integration strategy runs until December next year, and partners have begun discussions on arrangements to develop the third strategy with the aim of publishing that in 2023. We want to ensure that that is shaped by refugees and people's asylum, as well as those with expertise supporting them. Over the last few weeks, we have heard the voices directly of those who have come and settled here, and some of the issues that remain, some reserved and some have been devolved, which we need to work through. The member also made reference to the work with COSLA in terms of the ending Destitution Together strategy, which was published in March of this year. It looks at improving and strengthening the support provision for people with no recourse to public funds. It has been informed with very powerful testimony from people with lived experience who have suffered destitution. It sets out initial actions to deliver essential needs, enable access, specialist advice and advocacy, and making sure that people can pursue their ambitions and be active members of our communities. Just as I said in my opening remarks, this is very pertinent at the moment in terms of the work that we are doing to make sure that Scotland plays its part in supporting those who have come from Afghanistan in quite terrible circumstances and who are very vulnerable indeed. Afghan families are already being welcomed into Scottish communities under the local employed staff relocation scheme. We have got 22 local authorities so far expressing keenness to support the Afghan citizenry settlement scheme. We have been pushing the UK Government for more information. I had a myself and Angus Robertson meeting with UK ministers last week to look at the detail, the funding and make sure that local authorities have the information that they need. There are some practical issues about access to interpreters and making sure that people who are coming into hotels are settled as quickly as possible. We have a long history of welcoming people of all nationalities and faiths, including those seeking refuge and asylum from war and terror elsewhere. It is important that we continue to play our part. Thank you very much, cabinet secretary, for that. It is hardening to hear the focus on lived experience. I think that that is a theme in this committee across lots of different elements of our work. Can I just follow up on what you were saying about the ending destitution strategy? What has been the response primarily from the third sector organisations that this has to work in partnership with? How can we make sure that we are appropriately measuring the effectiveness of the strategy? We do not necessarily get the volume of quantitative data that is useful in that respect. The work of third sector organisations supporting people who have no recourse to public funds is vital, because clearly there are very strict rules around the UK Government's rules on no recourse to public funds. We have to proceed with caution because, ultimately, at the extreme end of things, you could jeopardise someone's leave to remain in their status if they were to receive funds that the UK Government deemed that they should not have. Therefore, we have to be extremely careful in this area, which is why funding third sector organisations is the best way of supporting those individuals and families who need that support. I would also make the point that, when you look at the skill level and skill base of many of those who have come here either through refugee or asylum seeking processes, they are hugely skilled and potentially valued members of our communities. The sooner they are able to use those skills and be able to work, the better for our communities and society at large. Unfortunately, some of the issues remain reserved to the UK Government, but we continue that dialogue in order to try and work through some of the barriers that remain for some of the most vulnerable members of our society. What are your understandings, cabinet secretary, of any gaps in equality data and how those could impact on policy development? I am happy to say a little bit about that. I will bring in officials at this point who will be a bit closer to the detail on the data challenges. One of the issues with data is that, if you do not have it, it is difficult to benchmark in terms of knowing what the progress you are making and the progress that you are still to make. We have strengths and weaknesses in our data collection. I am just trying to think which official would be best to bring in, whether that would maybe be Jess, in this matter. Jess? Apologies for the delay. I think that it would be best if we commit to writing to the committee with a full update round the equality data strategy and updates. Okay, unless anyone else wants to come in on that briefly, we will look forward to getting that in writing later. Deputy convener, you have a question on the budget process. Thanks very much, Joe. Just a couple of questions around how we embed equalities and human rights into our budget process in a meaningful way. Can I ask the cabinet secretary what steps the Scottish Government is taking to build the capacity of all Scottish Government members and officials to ensure that budget spend advances our equalities and human rights agenda? A second part to that question, how do we ensure that our budget processes are as transparent as possible, especially around those? It is about informing those who are doing the budget setting, but also being transparent for those who might want to be involved in that process. That is an area that was flagged up with discussions with the Scottish Green Party around the importance of looking at how we can do this better. The development of the equality and human rights budget process will build on the 10 key emerging risks in the next equality and fairer Scotland budget statements. We want to make sure that, as far as possible, we can ensure that the integration of lived experience of people who can be involved in the budget process is not easy. It is not an easy process to take forward, but we have made a commitment to look at what more we can do. One theme of the recommendations from the equality budget advisory group is improving knowledge and understanding in the area. It is therefore sufficient to say that we are working on it. We do not have all the answers, but we can come back to the committee with more detail if that would be helpful. I will answer a little bit to the last question, which I can see. We will write to the committee around the gaps. We have published research to improve our understanding of the collection and use of equality data and data on socioeconomic disadvantage by Scottish public sector bodies. That will help us to understand where the gaps are and how we can ensure that we fill those gaps. As I said, we will write to the committee with more detail on that. Thank you very much for that, cabinet secretary. In that written information that you provide, could you be very clear and address the 10 risks that were identified in the equality and fairer Scotland budget statement just to make sure that we are clear about what work is happening against each of those identified risks? Similarly, information against each of the recommendations of the equality budget advisory group would be really useful to have that in the risk and response. That takes us to the end of the questions. There are a couple of areas that you agreed to write to us on, so we look forward to receiving those responses. Obviously, cabinet secretary, we will be seeing you next month specifically to discuss the budget, so we will be able to come back to some of those points at that opportunity. For now, thank you and thank you to all your officials. Members, that takes us to our next item of business, which is the consideration of a Scottish statutory instrument that is subject to the negative procedure. I refer members to paper 6. Do members have any comments on the age of criminal responsibility Scotland Act 2019, register of child interview rights practitioners, regulations 2021? No. No member has indicated that they have any comments to make. That being the case, are members content formally not to make any comment to Parliament on this instrument? That is agreed. We will now move into private session for the final items on the agenda. Thank you.