Hefyd, rlywodraeth. I welcome to the seventh meeting of session six of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. The first agenda item is to agree whether to take item 7 in private, which is consideration of today's evidence to the petition. Are we all agreed? Okay, that means...We move on to agenda item 2. Our next item is consideration of an affirmative instrument, the draft First year Tribunal for Scotland chamber's amendment Regulations 2021. I welcome to the meeting Ash Regan, Minister for Safety, who is accompanied by Scottish Government officials Paula Stevenson, Tribunal Policy and Martin Brown, legal directive in the Scottish Government. I refer members to paper 1. I invite the minister to speak to the draft first-year tribunal for Scotland, chamber's amendment regulations 2021. Thank you, convener, and good morning to the committee. The Tribunals Scotland Act of 2014 created a simplified statutory framework for tribunals in Scotland, bringing existing tribunal jurisdictions together and providing a structure for new jurisdictions. The 2014 act created a new two-tier structure for tribunals in Scotland. The first-tier tribunal for initial appeal decisions and an upper tribunal primarily for appeals from the first-tier tribunal. Those tribunals are known collectively as Scottish tribunals. Section 21 of the 2014 act provides that the first-tier tribunal is to be organised into a number of chambers, having regard, among other things, to subject matter. There are five existing chambers in the first-tier tribunal. That regulation is a technical regulation that makes provision for a new sixth chamber to be known as the first-tier tribunal for Scotland local taxation chamber, which will hear appeals currently dealt with by evaluation appeals committees and the council tax reduction review panel. Those regulations form part of a broader suite of instruments, which will, in due course, be required to enable the transfer of the valuation appeals committees and the council tax reduction review panel to the first-tier tribunal. I understand that the DPLRC considered those regulations on 5 October, and they did not raise any points, but I would be happy to answer any questions that the committee may have. Okay, thank you. Are there any questions for the minister? Okay, there are no questions for the ministers. We therefore move on to agenda item 3, which is consideration of the motion for approval of the affirmative instrument, and I invite the minister to move the motion. Does any member have any comment? That being the case, can I ask members, are we agreed to the motion? That is agreed, and therefore the motion is agreed. I thank the minister for her evidence, and we'll take a short break for her to leave. I invite the committee now then to agree to delegate to me and the clerks, the publication of a short factual report on our deliberations on the affirmative SSI that we have considered. Is that agreed? Thank you. We then therefore move on to agenda item 4, which is consideration of negative instrument, so refer members to paper 2. Does any member have any comments on the Scottish Tribunal's eligibility for appointment amendment regulations 2021? That being the case, no member has indicated to have any comments. Are members content to formally not to make any comments to the Parliament on these instruments? We then move to agenda item 5, which is consideration of petition PE1817 to end conversion therapy, and we'll pause to allow the witnesses to come to the table. Welcome back. As I said, the next item on the agenda is to continue to take evidence of petition PE1817 to end conversion therapy, and today we'll be hearing from faith groups who support the petition. I want to put on record that while we have four representatives today, we have received a range of evidence from other faith groups, which we have included representations from Jewish and Muslim communities, and that will all appear in our evidence in the final report. I welcome to the meeting today Ricky Marshall Cross, clerk of South Edinburgh Local Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends, Quakers in Scotland. Jane Ozen, director of the Ozen Foundation, chair of the Ban Conversion Therapy Coalition. Reverend Elder Maxwell Rhee, member of Council of Elders of the Metropolitan Community Churches, NHS Healthcare Chaplain. Reverend Fiona Bennett, minister of the Augustine United URC and moderator-elect of the General Assembly of the United Reformed Church. You're all very, very welcome, and I invite members to refer to papers 3 and 4. If I could now invite each of the witnesses to make a short opening statement starting with Jane Ozen, please. It may help members to know that I'm a member of the General Synod of the Church of England, and I direct the Global Interfaith Commission on LGBT Lives, which last year brought thousands of very senior religious leaders from around the world to call for a ban on conversion therapy, among other things. Conversion therapy, more accurately known as conversion practices, given that the UK government research shows that they occur mostly in religious settings and are definitely not therapeutic, constitutes at a minimum degrading treatment of an individual and can even, according to the UN, under certain circumstances amount to torture. Based on discriminatory beliefs, they undermine our right to a family life and our human dignity and perpetrate a continuum of violence towards us as a community. These are clear violations of articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and states are therefore under a positive legal obligation to provide an adequate framework of protection for LGBT plus people. Scotland has a unique opportunity to lead the world in this area if they have the courage to do what the British government are failing to do and provide a fully comprehensive ban that has no loopholes or get-out clauses. This will necessitate tackling head-on the complex issues of freedom of religion and belief and freedom of speech. The group of senior human rights experts behind the COOPER report, which I convened and which Baroness Helena Kennedy chairs, has made it clear about actions to limit the manifestation of religious belief that a necessary, proportionate and justified must be taken if any ban is to hold. What is more, they are unanimous that, given the imbalance of power frequently involved and the significant number of vulnerable people who are at risk of being harmed, the law cannot and does not allow for consent to be used as a defence, so please let us have a full ban. As Quakers, our testimony of equality stems from the religious conviction that all people are of equal spiritual worth and each one of us is a unique precious child of God. We believe that both sexual orientation and gender identity are sacred gifts and we are deeply troubled by practices that seek to change, cure or suppress them.   Throughout our history, Quakers have been guided by our relationship with God to work to bring about a just and compassionate society, which allows each person to use their gifts to serve God and their community. This has included equal rights, recognition and appreciation of LGBTQIA plus people. In 2009, Quakers began actively campaigning for equal marriage, having officially recognised same-sex relationships since 1988. At our yearly meeting gathering in August 2021, we recorded a minute to acknowledge and welcome gender diverse people in our Quaker meetings. Parts of that read, we seek to provide places of worship and community that are welcoming and supportive to trans and non-binary people who want to be among us. With glad hearts, we acknowledge and affirm the trends and gender diverse friends in our Quaker communities and express appreciation for the contribution and gifts that they bring to our meetings. We rejoice in recognising God's creation in one another. We seek a Scotland where no LGBTQIA plus person will be made to feel inadequate or wrong and that all will be supported in being their true selves. Hello. I am a minister of the United Reform Church and I am standing as a moderator-elect for the URC in England, Wales and Scotland. I am standing very much on a platform that is a very inclusive platform and very affirming of LGBTQIA people and that is partly why I was elected to that particular post. That comes from an experience of about 10 years ago when the Metropolitan Community Church of Edinburgh folded and merged into Augustine and Augustine being the local church, and at that point we set up an LGBTQIA affirming ministry. Really interestingly, 10 years ago the people who were members of MCC Edinburgh who joined Augustine were very anxious about joining Augustine because the anxiety was about how were they going to be treated in a mainstream church. How were they going to be treated because a large percentage of them, if not all of them, had experienced some form of conversion therapy, which had been very damaging to them. Over the past 10 years I have ministered with this community and we have had endless people coming into our congregation who find us because we are overtly open, overtly inclusive, often coming through the internet. There are people who are anxious about connecting with mainstream Christianity because of the hurt that they have had and yet still experience and express a spiritual desire somehow to connect with the community. I have met people who, often through their teenage years, because that is often at the point in life where we are becoming more aware of our sexuality and gender identity, have experienced real harm through the Christian church, which has often led to mental illness, self-loathing and fear, fear of damnation. It is very easy to break people. It is very hard to see healing and recovery from the harm that has been caused. I am also an honorary chaplain, the honorary URC chaplain at Edinburgh University and have met people in exactly the same who have had exactly the same experience from across the world who come to the university there. A ban on conversion therapy would protect the vulnerable. It would honour the medical evidence that gender and sexual orientation are healthy, and from a theological point of view, from my perspective, it would affirm that all are divinely created and that all gender identities and sexual orientations are intentional. It would be very, very helpful and life-giving to all of us in the church who stand in this perspective. Hi, my name is Reverend Elder Maxwell-Rae. I use the pronouns he and him.  I am visually impaired and I have been a minister with Metropolitan Community Church since 1993. I currently serve on the Council of Elders. MCC is a worldwide Christian denomination that serves the LGBT community and beyond. MCC was set up in 1968 by a gay man, Reverend Elder Troy D. Perry, who was excluded from his church, from his job, from his home, from his ministry for being gay. He tried to kill himself and, unfortunately, survived. Reverend Elder Troy followed his calling and offered an inclusive worship service open to all LGBT folks in his home town of Los Angeles. He believed, as we believe today, that he was loved by God and that his sexuality was a gift from God, not something that needed to be hidden or felt ashamed of or felt guilty about. MCC has had a presence in the UK since the early 1970s. There are currently 10 churches in the UK, six in mainland Europe and 200-plus worldwide. I found MCC in 1989 and it saved my life. MCC has always challenged discrimination, promoted equality and advocated to protect human rights. We do this because we believe that God loves everyone and that that love is inclusive and that it celebrates and affirms all LGBT folks with no exceptions. I have been providing emotional, spiritual and pastoral support to those who have experienced conversion therapy in a variety of secular and ministry roles for over 30 years. I was the chair of FTM London, female to male London, for five years. I was a founding member of Transmasculine Scotland. I have also staffed LGBT Youth Scotland's helpline and provided specific one-to-one trans support for young people and their families. I have several years of experience of working in the HIV voluntary sector at the height of the pandemic in the early 1990s to about 2000. Following that, I trained as a social worker and worked in a children and families team. I am currently employed as a full-time NHS healthcare chaplain in Lothian. I have 12 years of experience of working as a chaplain in mental health and a couple of years of working as a chaplain currently in the Royal hospital for children and young people. In this post as a chaplain, I have worked to support the spiritual care needs of all patients, but in particular LGBT plus patients, carers and staff. MCC has worked in other areas of the world to support the ban of conversion therapy. MCC supports the ending of conversion therapy in Scotland and across Britain and worldwide. I support the ending of conversion therapy in Scotland and across Britain and worldwide. I was going to ask about the definition of conversion therapy, but we have probably covered that in your opening remarks across the piece. We will go straight into questions from members. There are obviously four of you. It may be that you think the same, so do not feel obliged to answer every single question if you do not have something else to say, but we have about an hour, I think. I start with Pam Gossel. Thank you for your opening statements and sharing your personal experiences. Although no one is under an illusion that we need to have a comprehensive legislative ban on conversion therapy, the committee is aware that some faith-based organisation may express concerns that a ban of conversion therapy may veat crossover into some of the religious practices. With that in mind, do you think that a ban on conversion practices would have an impact on the support provided by some religious leaders? Research clearly shows that the vast majority of conversion practices occur in religious settings. Of course, a ban must, if it is to protect people, impact on certain harmful religious practices. They are forms of spiritual abuse that we are not commonly used to talking about. It is important that we have a clear definition of what is wrong, so that we have a necessary proportionate and justified limitation. The law is clear, as the UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion spoke at a parliamentary briefing in Westminster, which I set up. He is very clear, as are the senior human rights experts, that one has to limit the manifestation of religious practices—not that you cannot limit one's personal views—but that you rightly limit the manifestation of those practices when there is clear evidence of harm. The recommendation that we have made is that you need to have some tests. The first is that the practice needs to be directed at an individual or a group of individuals—it is not just a general practice—and it needs to have a predetermined purpose of seeking to change, cure, suppress someone's sexual orientation or gender identity. By that, I mean that there is a predetermined outcome that one has to be heterosexual or cisgendered. You will hear, I am sure, at this table pleased to be able to continue with prayer and pastoral guidance, but those are pleased to carry on, I am afraid, harming people. Prayer and spiritual pastoral support, which creates an open safe place where people can go into that space and any outcome is acceptable and right. Prayer and pastoral support are good and should be encouraged, but when it has a predetermined purpose directed at a specific individual or group of individuals, that is the necessary, justified, proportionate limitation, it must be banned. I am employed as an NHS chaplain, so daily I work with people, patients, staff, carers, who have completely different religious views to the ones that I might have. It is part of my job to work with those people in a way that offers therapeutic space for them to talk about how they feel, what is happening in their lives, the big questions of what is important to them and to do that in a way that does not conflict with what they believe or what I believe. It is perfectly possible to do that. I am employed as a generic chaplain, so that means that we work with people of any faith or no faith at all in supporting their spiritual needs. On a daily basis, I am able to work in that way, which means that I can provide support safely, securely and reflective space for people to explore how they feel and what matters to them without having to put my own views across. Conversion therapy affects the right to religious freedom. On a daily basis, I am working in that way, and it poses no concern to the right to religious freedom. Thank you very much for your responses. Obviously, with the urgency of the bill, what more do you think we can do? You have talked a little bit about the information and education on it, so that we do not hinder anyone's religious beliefs and practices and focus more on the actual ban itself. Jane has done more work on that touch. I am sorry to forgive me for coming back, but it is an area—I think that it is important to—I should have perhaps noted that there are major denominations for the whole of the Church of England, the Methodist Church, many senior Baptist ministers, the Hindu Council, the Buddhist Dharma Centre. There are many who have called for a ban on conversion therapy, and they have done that because what they need is a clear indication from Governments as to what is acceptable and what isn't. Then they can work within their religious communities to end it. It is a two-pronged approach. We need both ends. Yes, we need the educational things, but it is often a theological debate. You will often hear one side saying that they hold the true orthodoxy, but the truth is that, particularly in the Christian Church and, indeed, other faiths, there is a divergence of theological opinion on this. There are many theological scholars on both sides of the debate, and it is that that we need to perhaps hear from, but most importantly we need to hear about the impact on the individual. Pope Francis himself in March 2021 gave a quite foundational speech where, in a sense, many have claimed that he was talking about conversion therapy, but he talked about the need to engage with the reality, not the theological ideology. He himself, who I think you may know, I met to talk about this, is concerned about the way that religious teaching has been framed to input harm. It gives the religious leaders what they need, which is a ban, and then allows them to work with their communities and fund their education. Good morning, and I want to thank you all for your testimonies this morning. I would like to ask, does the panel view this issue as one in where there should be no exemptions and no excuses, or do you take the view of some that practice is merely objectionable, and what do you feel about the issue of consent? More often than not, I think that it comes down to the form of abuse. When you are talking about consent, because there are issues of power at play here between people who hold religious authority and people who are seeking, I think that the whole thing about consent is a bit of a red herring in lots of ways. Fundamentally, freedom brings responsibility. For me, the evidence is that all conversion therapy leads to destructiveness of individuals, and that is what the evidence of those who have gone through it overwhelmingly indicates. Therefore, it is fundamentally an issue of abuse. I cannot really see—there is no context in which I would say that FGM is acceptable. That is a physical thing, it is obvious. I would actually see conversion therapy in the same way, so I think that it needs to be quite clear that it is a destructive thing when we are tethered. The Cooper report, which I believe might have been sent, is a group of senior legal experts, but there are also civil society and MPs across the party in Westminster who have signed this, and they have recently put out a specific note on consent, because we knew that it would be such a key issue. We are clear that you cannot allow for consent when the case law does not allow for consent. Even informed consent, when there is an imbalance of power, or when there is a significant number of vulnerable people will be put at risk. Even if there is a small minority of informed people who could consent—we have already talked about FGM or forced marriage—domestic abuse does not allow for consent, nor does even wearing a seatbelt. There are many people who think that they are perfectly good drivers, that they live in perhaps the countryside and don't even see another car. Why should they have to wear a seatbelt? The law intervenes in order to protect the majority. As you will perhaps expect me to say, I do believe that Westminster has got this wrong in the proposals that they announced on Friday to allow for informed consent as a misnomer, because in a religious setting, I willingly consented—you may know that I went through conversion therapy—I actively sought out conversion therapy, because I truly believed that it was the right thing to do. Everyone around me believed that it was the right thing to do, but I ended up fighting for my life. Normally, in a medical setting where you have informed consent, when a surgeon provides you with a sheet of paper outlining the risks, it is with the expectation that you will consent. Very few people go to hospital with a view of not signing the consent form, and it would be exactly the same in a conversion therapy setting. The law is clear, survivors are clear and, dare I say, a religious setting is a misnomer. I want to talk about some of my experiences of working with people. Some people come to you and are asked to be cured or changed or made better, because they feel that it is wrong to have the feelings that they have about their sexuality or their gender. However, you have to ask where those messages come from and where they get them in the first place. Internalised homophobia and internalised transphobia come from somewhere, and they tend to come, I would say, at the top from the church, from family, from peers, from community leaders, from the media. I have journeyed with many people who have discovered that those messages are wrong and that they have absorbed them over time and then they begin to realise that they are false and that they have a sense of liberation and healing that comes from a god that loves them and a god that is not judgmental, controlling or vengeful. However, I have also journeyed with people who have not managed to make that change and have sadly lost their lives to the struggle for self-acceptance. Intense feelings of shame, guilt, pain that is emotional and physical, people feeling worthless and powerless to do anything about it. People get worn down, completely worn down and unable to see a way forward.  I just want to read you and I have permission to read this, a text that I received a couple of days ago. Very weird watching all the conversion therapy TV news last night, I went through that at points between the age of 18 and 21 years before I broke away, made me feel weird last night, but I awoke to feeling proud and empowered and even more certain of who I am than ever. So that's from a survivor who fought to survive. But something as simple as a news report and article in a paper can bring it all back. I think that what's being expressed by the other panellists completely speaks for what I would have said that it is underpinned by a belief that certain sexual orientations and gender identities are wrong and often that comes from the same communities where this is being offered. I agree that consent is very much intertwined with power and would question what consent means in this situation. Good morning. Thank you for coming this morning and for your testimony, which is incredibly powerful and I appreciate the strength of passion and feeling that you bring with it as well. It's really important for the work that we're doing. I should declare an interest as I'm sure others around the room would agree that during the election campaign I supported a full and comprehensive ban on ending conversion therapy and I remain committed to that and also the more I hear about it the more I just want to do it as quickly as possible. The question that I have is about human rights but I haven't heard what we've said this morning. Some of that is answered and I also have a question about the children and young people that you've worked with. Firstly, the committee has heard, as you'll be aware, from a number of faith-based organisations about the human rights to religious belief and your testimony this morning highlights where that interplays and where the line is. Could you talk a little bit about the specific human rights that you think are at play here for both people in terms of their religious rights but as well for people who have the right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of the fact that they may be LGBT or plus? Could you help us with ways in which we can provide reassurance to people that have these concerns? Finally, the point that you made about your work in the Children's Hospital is that we're keen to hear a little bit more about that and the sorts of work that you do around conversion practices in hospitals and the sorts of conversations that are taking place because I think that it's incredibly important that we work with young people on this as well. Shall I speak to some of that? I don't want to repeat too much but I think that the call rights are articles 3 and 8, as I mentioned in my opening statement, article 3, against degrading inhumane or even torture. As a minimum, all conversion practices are degrading because they're based on the belief that who you are is wrong. I think that you've established that and therefore you're treated as second-classed.  So article 3 is clearly violated and article 8, a right to a family life, is clearly violated when you are told to suppress your sexuality, i.e. that you have to be abstinent for life, not chased or celibate. Those words, I'm afraid, are different. Celibacy is a calling, something that you willingly embrace because you believe that's what God has asked you to do. When you are mandated that you have to be celibate, that's abstinent for life, i.e. no intimacy, no love, no relationship, that is crushing and is a clear violation of article 8. Now you will hear arguments that say articles 9 and 10 about freedom of religion and belief and freedom of speech are being violated, well no, because there are clear statements but both the UN and the European Convention of Human Rights make, they put limitations where there is clear evidence of harm and that harm has been well documented by all the medical professions, by the UN themselves, by foundations like my own who've done research and now the UK's government's research that was published but rather buried on Friday. As I said up front, I think that if I may, Scottish MSPs, you are in a unique position to do something truly courageous but necessary which both Australia and New Zealand have chosen to do and to tackle this. The UN is fully behind you as indeed are thousands of religious leaders but we have to stop the perpetrators from being able to continue the abuse. I do work as a chaplain and obviously for NHS Lothian I can't talk about the specifics of individual work that I do which I'll be aware of and I thought it might be helpful to talk a bit about my own experience when I was a child. I was never a girly girl, I was always much more of a boy and I came out at the age of 15 as gay to a few friends and I managed to keep it quiet until I was 17 and at that point I was sent by family to a GP who sent me to a psychiatrist and I pretended that I wasn't gay to prevent having to go back and then about a year later when it was really difficult to hide, I was taken back to the GP and sent back to the psychiatrist and I promised against my will not to the psychiatrist who actually was a pretty good individual but I promised against my will to my family that I wouldn't follow my feelings and I wouldn't discuss them anymore and I was expected to go to church as this would somehow prevent me being me. I was made to wear clothing that was not my choice so to survive I went back to the same GP and was prescribed tranquilisers. To survive I left the church of Scotland that I was part of before any awkward questions were asked. To survive I drank a lot, I stopped in 89 when I found MCC. To survive I left home when I could my story was completely shut down. I was shut down, I was isolated, I was alone. I was in a world that didn't recognise me for who I was but recognised me for who they thought I was and it took a long time, 13 years before I could really be me and transition to be the gender queer man that I am today. Had I been supported properly in those earlier years I probably would have been able to explore who I was, my identity, my life, what it meant to me much earlier on. As a chaplain I said before I work with people who often have very different religious views from me but my work is always person centred and that work isn't dependent on one set of religious beliefs. It's based on a set of values and the values that we hold in Lothian are care and compassion, dignity and respect, openness, honesty and responsibility, quality and teamwork. So I can offer a safe, reflective, affirming and flexible space for individuals no matter what age they are to explore what they wish to explore. Conversion therapy experiences on many occasions have been brought to this space no matter what age. Spiritual care helps you to explore those things, helps you to think about the big questions in life, the kind of meaning and purpose stuff that comes up, your identity, it's core to that. The question that you need to ask is, which is really straightforward in that situation and I said this earlier, is what is important to you. The answer to that that I often hear is a desire to be heard, to be seen, to be affirmed and to have your experiences validated and acknowledged is quite straightforward. So helping people to find their voice no matter what age and to use that voice to create change in their lives helps them to integrate and heal and become whole. Thank you very much for that, that's really powerful evidence. Again I'm very happy to hear what's been said by other other speakers and would fully support that. I would just add that, as has been said for many people, it's in their teenage years when they are exploring their gender identity and their sexuality and any idea that people don't know their true selves until they're an adult and therefore should not be treated the same as adults. I would not follow that and I think that supporting people where they are for what they want is the sort of support that we should have in place. I absolutely endorse all that's said but specifically as you're talking about religious rights and freedom it is about balancing that against the evidence of harm and I think that that is the question that people need to face. The question or rather there has never been admission of harm by those who want to continue to do this and when you take evidence from them I would ask you but you push them on will they admit to the thousands of testimonies i.e. the qualitative research as well as the quantitative research now that clearly shows that harm has been done and we're not talking about ancient practices of electric shock we're talking about prayer and exorcisms which have caused people like myself to consider taking our lives so I would dearly love an answer to that now just I realized I should have added that obviously pastoral prayer pastoral practice and prayer that is in an open safe space must be encouraged and therefore we are seeking specific definitions I mentioned earlier directed at individuals predetermined purpose and that would not include preaching for instance because that is to a general group so this would mean that you could continue to hold the beliefs even if we find them apparent you could preach about them what you can't do is use those beliefs as practices to try and make someone change thank you okay but now move to Fulton MacGregor thanks convener andy good morning panel andy I just have to say like like others have commented the evidence that you've already given today has been extraordinarily powerful and I want to echo my colleague Pam Duncan Glancy's earlier comments when she talked about during the election period signing the petition signing the campaign and I also want to put in record that I also think that campaign and remain committed to it in the testimony testimonies that you've given today have only strengthened that and I want to just put that on record I mean the questions I've got actually because of the intensity and in depth if your responses have been covered but you know I will ask I've got two broad ones the first one I will ask and that's about where you think the ban conversion therapy should focus itself you know I think you've all said it but I suppose it's useful to get on the record do you think that these really need to be focused in the private settings such as within the home and within religious settings are there any other places where you think such a ban would need to be focused and I'm happy to take in whatever order or whoever wants to speak first. So we conducted some research in 2018 when I say we the OZAM foundation on faith and sexuality and then last year we did a joint survey with Stonewall and Merwades on gender identity and and faith matters it is true to say that all settings we found prevalent so medical settings private settings religious settings cultural settings but by far and overall the majority of settings was in a religious backed context either in the home in the church or in specialised ministries I think it's also important to flag that whilst over half of the respondents of the 464 people who we contacted who contacted us to go through our survey had been children a third of them had been young adults between the ages of 18 and 24 and so a ban that only focuses on children will not cover vulnerable adults often when they've left home go to university you know get involved in in perhaps often quite large religious groups and are very vulnerable so I'm just I haven't said that before so I think it's important to flag that and the government sorry the UK government's own research flags that that's true but there has been a tendency to focus purely on medical settings and clinical professionals and the UK government's proposals don't really mention religious practices at all and so if you were to focus on something I really think you need to go to the heart of the matter and recognise but it is religious settings which are difficult to to engage with but that is where the problem lies and we need to be open and honest about that thank you anyone else want to respond to Fulton's yeah I'm not I just like to say I I agree with what James said I think in in my kind of long time working with folk who've experienced conversion therapy it's it's religious settings primarily I would say within the home as well as in the institutions where people are experiencing this type of harm and damage time after time people people don't even realise that it's wrong you know I think that's one of the other things folk of my age who came out and were involved in church communities are from family backgrounds that are religious and it was expected it it was just expected that you'd have to face this stuff and it wasn't even considered to be something that you could do anything about and that's why it is just so I'm so grateful that we're here today discussing this and making steps to change it again I would echo these but I think any any place where it is happening it needs to be a broad definition for what the ban is covering so that it provides clarity and therefore safeguards against harm so in every place that it's happening I agree that that clarity that saying that it is wrong and that even with steps in medical therapeutic settings to say that it's unethical that still hasn't stopped it from being practiced so yes in professional places in religious settings all the places where it's where it's been experienced Fulton, do you want to come back in? Yeah, thanks, convener. I want to thank the panel members for those responses. I'm not convener going to ask my original second question which was for the panels to talk about the experiences of supporting people who have been through conversion therapy because I think that that has been done by each of them and greatly and I'm sure it will actually come up again as we go through the rest of this session but I did have another question that's come to my mind convener if you don't mind me asking and it's something that's sort of grown in my mind as we've taken evidence here and it's just been referred to there that a lot of the time what we're actually talking about is children's experience in conversion therapy. Now we're talking about the possibility of bringing forward legislation to end conversion therapy in Scotland but how would this, to the panel with any idea or any thoughts, how they think such legislation might have to interact with the existing child protection legislation and procedures and I ask that coming from the background of being a children and family social worker for three years previously and thinking about the referrals to the reporters, the ground of referral to the reporter and the child protection procedures. Do the panel think that there's any overlap here in that such legislation would need to be incorporated into existing legislation including that to protect children? Sorry for the length of the question. It's a really important point so I'm afraid I can't speak specifically to your children's law but the COOPER report does strongly recommend a twin pronged approach of criminal law and civil protection orders, a special protection order against conversion therapy which would primarily I think be used in a children's setting where someone at risk can be identified as being at risk and can have the same protection orders as we would for any other form of abuse that that child may sadly be facing and that allows for an immediate intervention by the state which is proportionate and obviously talked about as opposed to heavy-handed criminal proceedings which are better focused at whole institutions rather than individuals. Dealing with family settings particularly in this set is complex, obviously children themselves don't want to turn on their parents, you know, there is a lot of complex relationships we have to navigate but we have experience of doing that with FGM and with other social domestic issues and therefore I do think we can build on what we know but we need a specific protection order that names conversion therapy that can look at removing those most of risk because sadly the suicide rates speak for themselves. I haven't explained but because I'm so public I do get contacted a lot by many survivors, particularly children, and we need helplines, we need support mechanisms where they know they can go in safety and be heard and understood and I'm afraid that's not happening in the medical or indeed the police settings at the moment. I'm no legal expert in terms of the detail of the law but one of the things that I think will need to happen in terms of protecting children is education and training for social work staff. Social work staff if this is something that they're not aware of that they've never had to deal with then there will need to be training provided so that staff are aware of what to look out for when they are working with children and families. Can I just say that I would completely echo the reverence point there because as I said as a previous children and family social worker myself I can testify that that is not something that we were either trained or asked or consciously were looking out for when dealing with individuals and families so I think that that is a point very well made. Thanks again Cymru. Thank you very much Joe and can I like others have done thank the panel very much for coming along this morning for sharing very personal and very powerful testimonies and for trusting us with those because that's I appreciate not always not always an easy thing to do. Like others I have supported the campaign for a full ban and I remain committed to that as both Pam and Fulton have already said. I've got a couple of questions one around medical profession and one around wider support for people exploring their sexual identity. On the medical profession there's been suggestions that medical practitioners might be criminalised if they do not affirm a young person's gender identity. How can we ensure that we work across the piece and I appreciate this isn't only an issue for the medical profession but how do we ensure that we work across the piece so that people are able to support young people and in some ways that does lead into my second question which is about supporting people to explore how do we ensure that we support people to have the safe secure spaces that they need to explore their sexual identity their gender identity if they are expected to conform but feel they don't? How do we make sure that we can genuinely have those open spaces that aren't curtailed by any legislation that we bring in? I kind of mentioned this before but I think that any therapy or any medical provision should be person-centred and it should be helping the person to explore their own identity, not direct them down a route that is based on a therapist or a clinician's personal religious beliefs. Therefore it should be non-judgmental and non-directive and I see no reason why a ban on conversion therapy would prevent that happening. I know there's been some talk about a therapist affirming the gender identity of a client and again I don't think there should be any concern about that because the only person who can affirm their gender identity is the person themselves it's not the therapist that's working with them they can only help them explore that in a reflective way. I'd completely echo gender affirming care means that you create a safe space where you allow the person in front of you, I was going to say survivor centric but you are client centric and all medical professionals know that so the problem is when the professional concern has a predetermined view themselves of what their client should be and therefore they cannot allow that person to explore because they don't believe it's possible. So the Cooper report deals with this in some depth so I would refer you to it but I think it's quite a simple phrase that has been misused and frankly if I may twisted by those who themselves have got quite a strong agenda here. What we need are safe spaces for young people to come to a point of peace some will know immediately from the earliest days of being able to speak who they are others are on a journey each is individual and unique and they need individual and unique therapy to help them come to that point of peace. We heard from what Maxwell said earlier actually there's a sense in which medical support or any kind of therapeutic support which doesn't hold a predetermined purpose already exists it's already happening in lots of in lots of situations and therefore I don't think it's that difficult for it to be established. The other comment is something else that Maxwell said was that there are a lot of people who don't understand in a sense what conversion therapy is and a lot of people who have gone through it who wouldn't necessarily identify or perceive exactly how they have been abused in that wider sense and I think by offering this ban I hope it will raise awareness so that people's perceptions will be shifted and that will go across society yes they'll be training for social workers they'll have to be training for teachers etc etc etc but I hope it will shift perception because it's about affirming people's choice of gender identity and social orientation it's about affirming that and allowing that to be and and understanding and understanding how subtle abuse can be in the use of power so I hope the ban would help in all of that but I think in a sense what you're asking already exists. I suppose when I'm thinking about this as a whole I see at least two elements the legislation and the ban is one part and I suppose I have a question about what you would like to see us do about that other part that education training raising awareness all of that kind of thing that won't necessarily make its way into legislation but I think if we just do the legislation then we're only doing half the job we need to be very very clear about what else needs to change and do you from your religious or faith perspectives do you have anything specific that you really want us to make sure that we do or maybe don't do or argue shouldn't be done around the sort of broader support structures support mechanisms education training that that we will need to be developing and resourcing alongside alongside any legislation. So there's three areas for me one is to do with the survivor themselves they need support they need counselling we've just launched a survivor helpline in the UK sorry Gallup have which we need funding for we need specialised therapists who understand the abuse people have gone through and who understand it particularly in a religious setting few people I know will trust either a therapist who they see will mock their faith or a Christian minister who they think will try and put them through it again so we need to signpost clearly we need whistleblowing mechanisms so and we need research that will identify repeat offenders at the moment there is no way of being able to log those and so that's from a survivor point of view from an education point of view we need to debunk a lot of the fake news that's been put out about this there are clear studies now that show the harm there are clear statements from the the medical professions there is a lot of body of research now by particularly at UCL under late Professor Michael King who sadly died over the summer but his department and many others have produced many papers that explained that the outdated Freudian analysis which used to believe that you were gay because something had happened to you is completely outdated now it's to do with often there's a belief it's to do with what happens in the womb and I think if you could give credibility to the peer-reviewed studies as opposed and decredit or debunk the myths that are out there and similarly I must omit around our for our trans friend there's a lot of fake news out there about that too and we and then we've talked about educational materials which I think are needed across the whole social care system and indeed with religious leaders and personally my personal view is I don't think religious leaders should be touching this area of sexuality and gender identity at all I think this is a matter for professionals it is you know we often think that prayer seems very soft very you know harmless but actually in this particular area of it's it's like any other quite sensitive area it needs a professional who's fully trained and I think that is a message that I would urge you to put out okay okay um I guess following on from from the point you've kind of touched Jane in particular you've touched on a number of pieces of evidence as a committee we've taken a lot of very powerful evidence and but we're keen to make sure we're not missing anything out there so I guess for all the panellists if there's any particular piece of evidence that you think we should be aware of then it'd be good just to flag that up but I wonder Jane if you could maybe you've touched on the Cooper report which I think we should make sure we're somehow linking to today's evidence to make it easily accessible to any that's following the committee's work but is there any other work that the Ozan Foundation have taken forward that you would want to find up to the committee? I've mentioned some but to put it all in one place in 2018 the faith and sexuality survey we invited anyone it was done online so it was a self-selection group we had over four and a half thousand responses of whom at 10 464 had been through some form of conversion therapy this piece of research was developed with the government equalities office I had an advisory board chaired by Professor Bernard Silverman who was the former president of the Royal College of Status Statistics and the Bishop of Manchester who's the lead bishop in the Church of England on statistics so it had an eminent board it was an eminent piece of research it showed clearly why people had been through conversion therapy who had put them through it and what the impact on them had been and it shows clearly I'm afraid the role of religion in most of that and indeed the horrors I mean we saw accounts of forced rape in the UK we repeated a very similar set of questions but aimed at our trans friends so we looked at gender identity and faith in 2020 that report had an independent researcher who oversaw that and that was done with Stonewall and Mermaids but Global Interfaith Commission on LGBT Lives issued a declaration last December signed as I think I've mentioned by very eminent numerous archbishops the archbishop Desmond Tutu, chief rabbis you know senior religious levels of that level who called for a ban on conversion therapy as well as an end to discrimination and prejudice and then I've touched on the Cooper report but perhaps most relevant for you is our memo on consent that was issued on Thursday last week and I will make that available so the Cooper report does have a section on consent but I think we felt that this was an issue and as we've now seen with the Government that really needed further evidence as to what was why the case needs to be so clear so that's what I point me to. Anyone else want to? No in one second so I'm just checking if anybody else has any other evidence obviously we've March was also mentioned some very direct evidence in terms of texts and such like that but is there anybody else? No, okay sorry. I have also written a paper for the European Journal of Human Rights on the whole issue of religious freedom and the law which you may want I mean it was eminent and peer reviewed I think that's quite apposite in this case. I think it's useful every time to pull those kind of references together so that people can see the wider story because perhaps early on there was a suggestion that maybe there wasn't enough evidence and we need to go and do more research so far too quickly so it's useful to pull that together. Alexander. Thank you convener and can I as the last member from the committee also extend my thanks to each and every one of you today for your very strong and very powerful evidence and testimony. I think it's very right that you are here to give that today and this has been a very useful and also enlightening presentation and section we've had in this whole process. There is no doubt there's a willingness out there to have legislation to ban but there's also some complexities about how that legislation should and could work and there have been suggestions that there's a UK ban and there's also been other suggestions that there is more that could be done potentially in some of the revolved areas and I'd like to have you try and tease out some of that from you at this stage because I do think that that's an important element and in the memorandum of understanding that we've put forward together there is optional also the talk about having this expert reference group and that would be bringing together other professionals and other organisations whether that be mental health whether that be legal or that be academic and I think there may also be a role for your own organisations in the faith and religious sector if there was a group of that nature for you to participate in that and to be heard and your views and opinions to go forward so my first question is about what your views are on the ban should it be UK wide or other opportunities as you've already indicated Jane that there may be pioneering that could be done and also if there is further to be done what we might consider bringing forward in discussing with organisations like yourselves to join experts to try and once again become much more holistic in this because we have heard and seen that in the past and some of the evidence you've taken there's a level that accepts sense within some groups that should be at the table and there's others who feel that maybe they shouldn't be at the table and it would be good to get your views on how you perceive and understand that thank you convener the west ministers proposals published on Friday make clear that they their proposals were only covering as I understand England and Wales and that they did see this as a devolved matter so I believe that does free you to do if you forgive me for telling you that but I'm sure you're aware to go in the same direction that New Zealand and Australia and others have done and give a clear full ban which is what survivors and I know you have the willingness to do but are calling for and I would suggest the best experts are those who've been through it I think too often we we look to people with letters after their names but who frankly don't always have a lived experience that understands what's going on here and there are people with lived experience in the academic in the medical in the religious and indeed social care system so I think we can pull that I as as head of my own foundation would be very keen to be involved as much or as little as you'd like us to do because I think having a connection with religious leaders who want to see who understand this is spiritual abuse and want to see a lead here that they can then follow for me what really needs to happen is a conversation about the dark side of religion where religion goes wrong if I can be brutally honest we are often very able to see it in what we see as other religions that's why we say other the non established religions and I speak as a member of you know the church of England but we're not very good at looking at ourselves and sadly the the horrific statements of well evidence of child sexual abuse has shown that we have a dark underbelly and this is one form of it and just because it's done by very acceptable white middle-class people doesn't make it any less harmful so we need a discussion as a society about spiritual abuse and I think this will be the catalyst to do that thank you and if I can just follow that up there has been some discussion in the past about loopholes and trying to tighten up some of these loopholes to ensure that there's not from this legislation that is going to happen that there is not consequences and there are not potential problems that can be manoeuvred or manipulated to ensure that organisations like yourself find some way of progressing or or ensuring that things can once again be hidden or they can be put in a different context it would be good to get a view on how you how you think that should be tackled because that is without doubt the underbelly potential that you have within your organisation for it to be contained for it to be managed and manipulated so that on the surface everything looks like it's well and we're doing things as we should but underneath there are still some concerns and there are still areas where it's been floated and loopholes are being used and individuals are also being put through that process. You're so correct I think that's why for me the definition has to include change cure or suppress because if you just ban changing organisations we make this clear in the Cooper report we'll just change their rhetoric but they will still carry on and pretend to suppress things we have evidence of in the states of organisations just changing their name but carrying on with the same beliefs and practices so that's why we need to have a clear whistleblowing and reporting structure so that we can track this and that we can build a picture after over time. I think it's important to say that people like myself aren't on a witch hunt you know there's a lot of fake news out what we want is to protect people from going through the hell we've been through but we do need to bring whole organisations to justice if they continue repeatedly to flout the law that's why we have the law so I see this as a necessary ban but the protection orders will be the vast majority of the work which will protect the individuals who are most at risk. In your answer to Alexander you mentioned New Zealand and Australia and obviously if Scotland's going to legislate we absolutely want to look at best best practice I think Germany's been flagged to us in the past as well but be good just to hear your perspective Jane in terms of the research that you've done about the differences different approaches in those particularly Australia and New Zealand. So I think I want to explain I convene a group which brings together all well nearly all and we haven't got France yet but all the campaigners who've been involved in each of their countries who've succeeded in getting a ban so we can share our own rhetoric. Germany is good to a point but it only focuses on minus it doesn't deal with the very significant issue of adults and I would not recommend that. Australia, the Victorian, Australia's three Australian pieces of legislation, Victoria is seen as the gold standard and New Zealand who's just in a sense built on that is very good. There are some complications with the Australian Victorian legislation which they themselves recognise there's not been room for compensation of victims so they're looking at doing that. The definition talks about change and suppress it doesn't talk about cure and I urge you to ensure that you have cure and inverted comments because it shows the mindset of many people trying to put who practice this and it does look at gender affirming care in quite some depth and it has civil protection orders which are good but it's framed on existing laws so it talks about serious injury and injury and in so doing it puts the burden of proof on the victim and that's something that the Cooper report has tried to move away from it's dare I say it's sadly a bit like rape where it's up to the woman to prove that she's been raped the burden of proof puts the victim through hell and we need to find ways of moving away from that so what we're recommending is sentencing uplifts for already criminal effects but then introducing a new criminal offence of conversion practices which would which would deal with that so a lot of good but there are some areas for improvement okay thank you very much palm did you want to come in just to follow on today we've heard about the conversion therapy happens basically in the home around the community and around religious settings I want to talk a little bit about the enforcement agencies around this if it was implemented and the complaint system so who do you think should be responsible for the enforcement what enforcement agencies especially that you know that other countries have worked on this should it be outsourced to the public body like equality and human rights commission or should the third sector be involved in this as well that's an excellent question Pam and I'm embarrassed to say I haven't given that as much thought as I perhaps should have done I know what Australia have done is to create a commission and I would suggest that that is that's a model that's worth serious contemplation can I come back to you I've just gone blank actually because I know that we've looked at that with I do think the equality and human rights commission is is the right one but because it spans as we've heard issues to do with children right through to the social I think we we may need a new model because I can't think of anything that would fully cover all aspects you know one of the problems we've got is a lot of people are centre-broad for instance so and we haven't touched on this today we need to look at you know stopping the export of a problem we need to look at banning advertising and promotion I should have mentioned that earlier you know there's all sorts of things and I think the breadth of the ban would require a specialised commission that doesn't I can't see a body yet who could cover that in in you know in deep in depth but I will come back to you with a written answer if if I may north thank you because I come from a background of regularity services with trading standards and stuff so that's why I can see that this question would be good to see how to be enforced this all yeah yeah I'm gonna just start with Maggie coming thanks and it's not really a question it's just really a follow-up to that in Scotland with the Scottish human rights commission I wonder if we can ask them directly that question as part of the additional evidence that we gather because because if it's Scottish legislation yeah would it be the EHRC or SHRC I think I think we would need we would need both of their views on that I know they've already spoken to us about the ban itself but actually enforcement is an important issue thanks okay as I say we are slightly over but if it's anyone else has a last burning question for now okay well listen thank you all so much for taking the time to come along that their evidence has been really powerful as as all the evidence we've taken we did and I guess for the record just to say that last week when we were in private we did take evidence from survivors in a safe safe space so I think it's useful for the record to make sure people know that we have heard directly from a range of people as well as today who have direct experience of conversion practices so thank you all very much we'll now suspend the meeting briefly thank you okay the next item on the agenda is to take evidence on the statement of reasons lodged to accompany the draft proposal on the member's bill the disabled children and young people transition to adult hood scotland the bill so I welcome to the meeting Paul Cain who's attending as substitute for Pam Duncan Glancy for consideration of this item so I invite Paul to declare any relevant interests thank you can be there I would draw attention to my register of interests as a serving councillor in the Shreffshire council and a member and former employee of enable scotland okay thank you so I welcome back to the meeting Pam Duncan Glancy MSP who's supported today by Kate Monaghan co-founder of because we matter and Robert McGee policy and engagement manager of camp hall scotland you're all very welcome our fair members to papers five and six and we also have correspondence from three organizations asking that the draft proposal be allowed to proceed to the next stage so I invite Pam to make a short opening statement thank you very much convener and thank you all for inviting us here today I'd also like to thank start by putting on record my thanks to Joanne Lamont who served as an MSP in the previous Parliament and brought this bill during that time and as you'll be aware it was very well supported but unfortunately ran out of time so I want to say thank you very much for the considerable work that my colleague did on this bill I'd also like to thank Inclusion Scotland and Camp Hill Scotland for their support along the way with Joanne's bill and also coming into this session for myself and the work that they've put in we couldn't have got here without without either of them so I want to put my my thanks on record to them and I'm really excited about this bill I think we have a real chance here and now to make a real difference and you all around this table can play your part today colleagues I remember my own transition from school to adulthood it was stressful drawn out confusing and more worryingly every one of my aspirations were met with countless barriers in action and delay my family and I spent years as project managers in our own lives co-ordinating various services and systems rather than living our lives that was almost 20 years ago I know you'd never think it everything I have heard from young disabled people and their families since then suggest that things have not improved and indeed in some ways they've got worse I don't want another young disabled person to be held back another minute by our inability to plan for them or support them that's why I'm proud to bring this bill to Parliament today empowering and supporting young disabled people at this point in their lives is not just something I care deeply about because it will mean people will be able to play their full part in the community open up employment opportunities for them and create a fairer society it's also something I believe that we have to do to create a Scotland where everyone has a fighting chance to live up to their own potential and for me the facts speak volumes there are five young disabled people are five times more likely to leave school without any qualifications the disability employment gap has widened from 32 percentage points in 2019 to 33.7 percentage points in 2020 the employment rate for non-disabled working age population decreased by 1 point over the year to 80.6 the same rate for disabled people was decreased by 2.1 to 46.9 percent at the age of 16 the aspirations of disabled and non-disabled people are broadly the same but by the age of 26 however disabled people are more likely to be out of work more likely to feel more likely to be not an education and three times more likely to feel hopeless believing that whatever they do has no real effect on what happens to me it's clear from the statistics that we have to take action and it's clear from the people who've spoke to us during the development of this bill and throughout this whole process that we must act now we're failing people at a crucial point in their life and I believe we have a duty to give them a fighting chance and achieving their goals this bill goes some way to doing that we're stripping people of their hopes and dreams even before they started to make them a reality they deserve better young disabled people cannot wait they've been consulted for years and have been saying the same things for years and that's why I ask the committee today to support our statement of reasons to not ask us to go back out to consult the same people to ask them the same questions for them to tell us the same stories that sadly they've been telling for decades thank you very much for hearing about this today and I hope that you'll support our statement of reasons and allow us to move quickly to give young disabled people a fighting chance thank you very much for your opening remarks and for the statement of reasons I guess obviously the the the role for the committee today is to decide whether we agree with your statements of reasons not to consult and so in doing that I've taken some time to have a look at the responses and as you mentioned a lot of the responses were people telling of their personal experiences and that is hugely powerful and I guess one of the arguments for the committee to accept your statement of reasons would be that those experiences stand and if you were to consult again as you would say you would hear the same stories again and that's almost certainly true one of the purposes of consultation however is in order to help guide the drafting of legislation going forward so I wonder if you could tell us what the timescales are for that you're working to to bring something into parliament terms of a bill and whether as part of that process even if you weren't to formally be consult how you'd make sure you would be getting views from people with lived experience on the specifics of delivery rather than hearing their very important life experience thank you for that question convener and you're quite right it's incredibly important that we listen to the people with lived experience and actually as a number of the consultation responses highlighted having legislation is a key part of this but it is not the only part and so it's important that we keep talking to people and asking what will make this a reality for them I would like to to pass this legislation as soon as possible and the reason I want to do that as soon as possible is because of the decades of of failure that we have put and that young disabled people have faced I don't believe that any delay is fair or just and so I would like to bring this as soon as possible but to reassure the committee hopefully I also want to bring the best possible piece of legislation so that generations of young disabled people after we bring this to parliament and hopefully pass it benefit from the strongest piece of legislation that underpins their rights to find chance at an education and employment opportunities after school and in that vein I've already since since lodging the intention and the statement of reasons earlier on and during the summer I've spoken again with COSLA I've spoken with various different lawyers to look at different parts of the the bill as proposed to see where and if it needs strengthened I've also spoken with a number of organisations including across various cross-party groups but also with other members of the Scottish Parliament to seek their views because it is incredibly important that we get this absolutely right. Thank you very much for your opening statement and for bringing this to us as you know the Scottish Greens in the previous session supported Jan Amont's bill and we're pleased to see that you're taking this up for this session. Without prejudicing our consideration of your statement of reasons today one of the things that we do have to determine is what is different I suppose between the responses or the approach that was taken by Joanne and what you intend to do. Could you just outline some of the key differences between what the previous legislation as drafted and what you would intend to to bring? Thank you for the question. I will and then I'll also defer if it's okay to my colleague Robert McGee who will be able to talk a bit more in detail about this. There are some specific changes that have already been made partly as a commitment and a response given by Joanne Lamont MSP to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee in the previous session and they are specifically around section 4 on the duty to comply with the legislation, section 8 the other duties, section 13 the dispute resolution and section 14 the guidance and section 15 on directions and specifically what we've done is we've strengthened the legislation by adding the need to consult with people who are representative of the people who it will impact on but also the bodies who will have duties and who will need to act and so I think that consulting element is going to be really important again so that we get the right legislation but also so that it's delivered in real life and on the ground where it's affecting young disabled people. Robert, do you have anything further to add to that part? Pam has covered the main changes to the bill that were requested in relation to points made by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. The only other provision that's changed slightly is that we've added section 12.2 to ensure that the review of the transitions plan keeps under review that the disabled child or young person is receiving the care and support necessary to meet their needs so the differences between the bill introduced in session 5 and the bill that Pam is proposing to introduce are fairly minimum and are of a technical nature. Fulton MacGregor? Thanks, convener, and good moment to the panel. Just like I said, convener, I just wanted to say that I am supporter of the statement of reasons. I think that I, and I would also like to say that I signed the proposed bill in the last parliamentary session as well before we finished up. While there could have been advantages to further consultation to get more information, I think that probably we have enough information from the original consultation and also within our own work. For example, I'm working with a number of families who have come together from my constituency who have children and young people in the very age group that we're talking about who have complex additional support needs and are finding it very difficult to access support from leaving school and making that transition. I would like to say that if this bill does go ahead in coming before the Parliament, I would like to get those people involved and their voices involved and I would do that through my role as their MSP and representative because I do think that there is further support needed there. At this stage, I'm happy to say that I agree with the statement of reasons that Pam Duncan-Glancy has put forward. I don't have any specific questions at this point, but I just wanted to put those views on the record. I was a bit to say that I didn't think that there really was a question for you, Pam, but I saw a smile come on your faces showing those cards slightly earlier. Thank you, Pam, for your opening statement. How do you see the Scottish Government turning this bill around for the full support and engagement with all the necessary organisations? And what organisations do you think that the Scottish Government should be working with to ensure smooth delivery? Thank you very much for that question. Before I answer, just to say thank you to my colleague Fulton MacGregor. Indeed, for showing those cards, I am much appreciated and happy to work with you to seek the views of the people in your constituency as well at any time that is convenient. One of the things that strikes me most about the problems with transitions is how chaotic it can be for people. You are working with so many different organisations, so many different people. I cannot explain enough how the role of a project manager becomes almost overwhelming at that moment in time. Sometimes the only people who know what any one organisation is doing at any time is the people themselves, the disabled person and their family. That is really hard work when what they should be focusing on is what the young person wants to do in their future and making sure that that is in place. I hope that, as is the case for most legislation, when we seek to implement it, the important part is that the Government would engage with all those different agencies. I also hope that those agencies would engage with the Government but also disabled people, young disabled people and their families too. To name a few, I think that it is safe to say that education authorities, local authorities, local government, health and social care partnerships and housing have an impact on a young disabled person's transition. It will be important that they all can work together. I believe that, in bringing in the bill, we have a unique opportunity to take the confusion and complication out of some of that by saying that those are the organisations at play and the different responsibilities that they each have. That is how we can work together in one single co-ordinating point in the plan for the young disabled person. I think that it will be transformative. It is nice to see you here. I would like to declare a bit of an interest here that I have lived experience in regard to transitions. I am grateful for you bringing this to the attention of the committee. There is a real sense of urgency behind your opening statement. I was just wondering whether you are certain that the balance between the information that you have now from the previous consultation and the urgency of the situation is proportionate? What discussions have you had with the Scottish Government in relation to any possible policy intentions? Thank you again for your question and for sharing that you have experience of it. I think that it is incredibly important. Sometimes we assume a lot of things about disabled people who are disabled people who have got experience of it, so it is important to say it out loud, so thank you for doing that. I have had a number of conversations with the Scottish Government and the Cabinet Secretary for Education and the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Quality and Social Justice and Human Rights. I have indicated that I would be really keen to talk with them about how we make this a reality. I have also said to the Government that, if there are any areas that they think would strengthen the legislation, I would be happy to work with them on potential amendments as the process goes through. That is what the process is about. We have three stages of a bill for a reason, so it will be important that we get all of Parliament to talk about it and to work together, including with the Government, on areas where we need to make any changes. I have been really clear and said that the policy intention of this is to improve the outcomes of young disabled people. In so doing, it requires the responsibilities of ministers, local authorities and all the actors that I spoke of earlier to ensure that they are all working towards that specific aim—underpinned or overpinned, that is even a thing—by a national transition strategy that is set out in legislation. It is not something that can come and go with different Governments. It is something that will always have to be there because young disabled people will always need this. I am hoping that the Government will engage in dialogue so that we can get that through, because it really is something that we need to do. On the point of the previous consultation responses and the urgency of all the consultation responses, where they went into some detail about legislation, as you would expect, the overarching message in all of it was that it was chaotic, stressful and difficult. It held people back. Of course, the outcomes that we see now for young disabled people and older disabled people into adulthood—let's not forget what happens to young disabled people at school—stays with them for a long, long time. It is one of the reasons why the employment gap is what it is. All those bits of evidence that we got at that stage and that the Education Committee took, we are really clear that we cannot continue to let this roll on longer, that we need to draw a line in the sand. I know that the committee has had representation from people first who have said that they have asked us to please now just listen and act, and so I would ask that we do that, that we have done the asking when I need to do the acting. Thank you, convener. Pam, thank you very much indeed for your passionate opening statement, because you, as I say, have lived experience and knew exactly. I have worked in the sector and have seen, as you have identified, individuals who have dreams, aspirations and hopes, and they can be dashed if this transition is not seamless and it can have an impact on them for the rest of their life. I think that there are some real opportunities here to try and manage and support this process. Is there any possibility by not doing another consultation that that would ensure that opportunities would be missed if a consultation was not carried out? By doing another consultation, that might strengthen some of the views and that might give some more opportunity for individuals to express where we are. As you identify every time that things progress, there are things that live back and there are things that do not progress for various reasons, but by doing this consultation, that would give you the chance, because if you do not do it, you might miss something out. Do you believe that that is the case? Thank you for your question. Honestly, if I honestly thought that we needed more information in order to help us to take this bill forward, then I would seek to gather it. Between now and when the bill goes through the various stages of Parliament, I want to continue to engage and to consult and to talk to people. That is how I do things, and it is also how I think that Parliament should work. It is not that we draw a line in the sand today and never again shall we hear another piece of evidence about this legislation. There will be numerous opportunities to hear from people, and I think that that is important. However, if I honestly thought that we had not heard the same things from largely the same groups of people for an awful long time, then I would say that we need to do more on this, but I do not believe that we do. It might sound to me, but it means too much to me to not get it right. If I thought that we needed to ask more and do that through a period of formal consultation, I would suggest that. I do not think that that is the case. Thank you, convener, and thank you to Pam for her presentation of those statements of reasons. I serve as convener of the cross-party group on learning disability, and this bill, both the previous iteration of the bill under Johann Lamont and the current version, has been discussed at length at that cross-party group. Many of the stories that have been alluded to by colleagues this morning of lived experience and the struggle and the battle around transitions have been aired there very thoroughly. I think that, similarly to Fulton McGregor's comments on others, constituents have been keen to get in touch and share their lived experience also. There is a compelling argument that we have done a lot of talking about this, and perhaps we are now coming to the point where we need to act. On that issue, if I can, the previous consultation, the 91 responses that you have referred to in your statement, were broadly supportive of the bill. It is fair to say that the other places that I have referred to, such as correspondence and CPGs, have also referred into that. Do you contend and feel that the bill has been shaped by those responses and experiences? That is what we all want to know. The bill, as drafted, has had that strong influence and that people have been listened to in the process. Thank you for that specific question. I take a lot of comfort in the fact that the bill has been drafted with the support and, in fact, literally pen to paper of user-led organisations of Inclusion Scotland and Camp Hill Scotland. On that basis, I am confident that the views of the people who we have listened to during consultations are heard in this version of the bill and that, in developing the bill in the first place, those organisations, along with my colleague Johann Lamont and myself, are benefiting from years and years, and in some cases decades, again, of the experience of what would make a real difference to people's lives. I reiterate that, if there are any ways in which we can strengthen it, the parliamentary process is the way it is because it allows us to do that. However, I am confident at this stage that the bill very much takes account of not just the responses that we heard during the last session, but also of the long-held views of organisations who are involved in helping draft it. That concludes questions. We are now required to make a decision on whether we are satisfied by the statement of reasons or whether we are not satisfied. I remind members that our decision should be based solely on whether we agree with the reason set out in the statement and that a further consultation on the proposal is not necessary. I am satisfied with the reasons set out in the statement of reasons. I know that Fulton is also satisfied. Is that agreed? That is agreed. I thank Pam, Robert and Kate for joining us today. The committee therefore is satisfied with the statement of reasons and will put a note into the system to make sure that the Parliament is aware that you can now go ahead with the bill without further consultation. Thank you all very much. We will now move into private session.