 Rwy'n fawr i'w ddau'r ddau, teimlo'r ddau, chi'n sefydliadau cymdeithas, cyfeirio'r ddau, cyfalaedd amgylcheddau cymdeithas. Fawr i ddau, ac amser, rydyn ni'n gweithio i'r byw yi'r gwaith i'r ddau, i'n ddau i'r ddau, i'r ddau, i'n ddau, i'r ddau, i'r ddau, i'r ddau, i'r ddau, i'r ddau. Mae'r first attendance at our committee, jami, am gyfnodau, i'n gwych i ddylch chi ddylch chi'n gwych gydag gyrraedd ymlaen. Mae'r first item on the agenda is to agree to us whether to take agenda items 5 and 6 in private, which is consideration of today's evidence and our approach to future engagement on the petition. Rwy'n credu. Rwy'n credu ychydig. Rwy'n credu agenda item 2, which is consideration of an affirmative instrument. Children's Legal Assistance, Miscellaneous Amendments and Consequential Provisions, Scotland Regulations 2021. I welcome to the meeting Ash Derham, Minister for Community Safety, who is accompanied by Scottish Government officials Jill Steven Pollard, Legal Aid Policy Officer, Access to Justice Unit and Martin Brown, Solicitor, Constitutional and Civil Law Division in the Scottish Government. I refer members to paper 1. I invite the minister to speak to the draft regulations. Good morning, convener, and thank you to the committee for asking me to speak this morning about the Children's Legal Assistance regulations. The purpose of this instrument is to support the implementation and the commencement of the Age of Criminal Responsibility Act of 2019. The 2019 act provides for orders in relation to children to allow for the investigation of their actions, notwithstanding that they will not have committed offences. These orders, when granted, largely permit the sort of interventions the police would otherwise be able to do in respect of suspects, so searches, interviews, taking of prints and samples, etc. These interventions will enable police to determine what has happened, so the right support can be put in place for a child whose behaviour has caused harm, as well as the person who was harmed by that behaviour. The legal aid provisions are to allow for representation in respect of applications for these orders to ensure that the rights of children and others, in some cases, are protected in the course of those proceedings. That is a brief overview, convener, of the regulations, but I am happy, of course, to answer any questions that the committee may have. Thank you, minister. Are there any questions or comments at this stage? That being the case, we move on to agenda item 3, which is consideration of the motion for approval for the affirmative instrument. I invite the minister to move that motion S6M-0098, that the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee recommends that the children's legal assistance, miscellaneous amendments and consequential provisions of Scotland regulations 2021 draft be approved. Formally moved, convener. Thank you. Do any members have any final comments? That being the case, are we all agreed that the motion be approved? That is agreed, so that completes consideration of the affirmative instrument. I thank the minister and her officials for attending. I ask if members agree that we will produce a very brief report on that instrument. Is that agreed? Thank you. A brief pause for the next panel to come in. I'm sorry, just a brief suspension. Thank you very much. Welcome back. The next agenda item is to continue taking evidence on petition PE1817 to end conversion therapy of two panels of witnesses today, both here and in person. Welcome to the meeting, our first panel of witnesses, John Lockey's head of Scotland, Equality and Human Rights Commission Scotland and Barbara Bolton, head of legal and policy at the Scottish Human Rights Commission. You're both very welcome to the meeting. Our fair members to papers 2, 3 and 4 and invite our witnesses to make short opening statements starting with John. Thank you very much, convener. I would like to make a few opening remarks if that's okay. Firstly, the commission would like to thank the committee for your invitation to come and discuss our submission on the petition to ban conversion therapy. The Quality and Human Rights Commission's role as an equality regulator for Britain covers Scotland, Wales and England, and we are also a national human rights institute, a role we share with the Scottish Human Rights Commission in Scotland. We have a range of inquiry, investigation and other powers to enable us to carry out our role of challenging discrimination, promoting equality of opportunity and protecting human rights. We work with other organisations and individuals to achieve our aims, but are ready to take action against those who abuse the rights of others. We have used the framework of our role and remit as a regulator and promoter of equality in consideration of our submission on this issue to the committee. Our colleagues in the Scottish Human Rights Commission have provided a human rights analysis, and we have focused our contribution, therefore, on the equality aspects and general principles. Our starting point, however, is to support the ending of conversion therapy across Britain and in Scotland, which many have noted nationally and internationally, including the UN independent expert on sexual orientation and gender identity, is a harmful practice. We regard it to be discriminatory to groups in society who are protected under the equality act 2010, in particular those who have particular sexual orientations or who are protected through gender reassignment protected characteristics. Those practices have no place in a modern, fair and inclusive society. Thank you. Thanks very much for having us today. As the committee knows, the Scottish Human Rights Commission is Scotland's national human rights institution under the United Nations human rights system. The commission supports a comprehensive ban on so-called conversion therapy by organisations and individuals in all settings and for all LGBT plus people. Conversion practices are inherently humiliating and demeaning, as noted by the independent expert group for torture victims. The combined effects of powerlessness and extreme humiliation generate profound feelings of shame, guilt, self-disgust and worthlessness, which can result in a damaged self-concept and enduring personality changes. Conversion practices will often amount to inhuman or degrading treatment or torture under international human rights standards, depending on the level of severity of the physical and mental pain and suffering inflicted. They also breach the right to health. Every person without distinction should be able to enjoy the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. That includes freedom from non-consensual medical treatment and the right of persons to be fully respected for their sexual orientation and gender identity. Conversion practices breach the right to health as they are premised on the idea that the person's sexual orientation or gender identity is wrong and requires to be changed and because they cause severe physical and psychological harm. In addition, the very existence of conversion practices in our society promotes a culture in which LGBT plus people are seen as needing to be fixed, thereby undermining their dignity and encouraging discrimination and violence against them. There is a consensus among the UN human rights bodies that a ban on conversion practices is required to protect the rights of LGBT plus people, including the independent expert on sexual orientation and gender identity, the UN special rapporteur on the right to health, the special rapporteur and UN committee against torture, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion and belief. They have all called for a ban on LGBT plus conversion practices. The commission agrees that ending conversion practices is necessary to uphold and protect the fundamental rights of freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, the right to health and equality. In terms of the suggestion that a ban on conversion practices could breach the right to freedom of religion or belief, the commission agrees with the UN special rapporteur on belief and religion, who has said that legislative measures prohibiting conversion practices will advance human rights and do not violate the right to freedom of religion or belief. The right to freedom of religion or belief is not absolute. While we all have the absolute right to believe whatever we wish, we do not have the absolute right to act on those beliefs. Where necessary to protect the fundamental rights of others, the state can and should restrict manifestation of religion or belief. As the special rapporteur noted, states cannot compel faith leaders to change their beliefs on sexuality or gender diversity, but states are empowered to protect people from harm. To conclude, the commission supports the petition's call for a comprehensive ban as an important step towards fulfilment of the state's obligation to protect LGBT plus people and uphold their rights. I'm going to start the question session with the same question that I've asked other folk. It's around definition, obviously. A lot of the evidence that we've received makes the point that it's really important that we get the definitions right. Maybe starting with Barbara, I'll just try to sum up as briefly as you can in terms of what your understanding of conversion therapy is in terms of the definition. I wonder if you can also deal with, in the EHRC's submission, there was a point stating that it's important that we have a statutory definition of gender identity. So maybe if you could cover that as well, but we'll kick off with Barbara. I think it's helpful to look at what the special rapporteur on religion and belief has said, having taken a lot of evidence on these issues and considered matters under the UN system. They have suggested that the definition of conversion practices, which would be sufficient in terms of safeguards for freedom of religion and expression, would require that a specific person or a class of persons is targeted on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity and for the purpose of changing or suppressing their sexual orientation or gender identity. They've also pointed out that the ban should cover advertising or promoting conversion therapy, and they have referenced other countries where bans have been introduced, including Germany and Victoria and Australia, which I think the committee has heard more detail about. There must be an end to all conversion therapy for all LGBT plus people in all settings, so it has to be a comprehensive ban, and the definition has to capture that. The independent expert has also indicated that the legislation should ensure that public funds are not used to support it and that punishments are in place for non-compliance and claims are investigated and that there are mechanisms to provide access to all forms of reparation. In terms of ending conversion therapy, that might involve a suite of different measures. We think that the critical issue is the definition so that the people who propose these proposals are designed to protect are in fact protected and that others aren't brought into the issue that they don't need to be brought into. For us, the key thing is that it's the target of practises and policies that are harmful because they intend to change or suppress someone's identity, whether that be sexual orientation or gender. I think that we would say that these two things aren't the same. Sexual orientation and gender identity transitions are different. In drawing up any definitions, we need to ensure that we reflect that properly. You asked me to cover the point about there's no such a difference in gender identity. The Quality Act talks about gender reassignment, the process of somebody transitioning from one sex to another. However, there are other examples that the Scottish Parliament, who has recently had hate crime legislation that was drawn earlier, sought to set out a definition of trans people. The key point is that we believe that the crux of this matter is to have carefully thought through definitions. As I say, the people for whom this is designed to protect are indeed protected. Those who perpetrate these practices are able to be brought to justice and others aren't drawn into that who don't need to be drawn into that. Good morning, panel. Thank you for coming along. In my previous life, I used to be a church minister and different people from my congregation would come to me looking for counselling advice and prayer, and they would range on lots of different topics. They would come because they wanted my advice. They approached me and gave their consent to do that, and often it was done with somebody else. They are sure that it was a safe environment. Under the change in law, would that be illegal for me to then pray for somebody if they asked me to do that, and if so, how did that not affect religious liberty? It all depends on what law is drawn up. Our view is that the law should be targeted at the practice whose intent is to change someone's identity. There's a difference between identity and behaviour, and certainly there are people who are LGBT, who in certain religious communities all have religious faith, who may wish to try to adhere to the tenets of that faith in terms of how they live their lives. The law should be drawn up so that support from faith leaders, spiritual leaders, which isn't intent on changing persons identity, but can help that person in terms of how they live their lives within the rules of that religious faith or belief. That would be to us the key dividing line, and again, stressing the importance of clear definitions so that people who are there or who are setting out to support someone around their behaviour and lifestyle, which isn't conversion therapy trying to change their identity, are not brought into that. Those will be sometimes quite difficult lines to draw, and that's why we think that there should be a great deal of care in consideration of what legislation and how that is drawn up. I would also reference the helpful guidance again from the special reporter on religion and belief. He's pointed out that a ban should not prohibit ordinary religious teaching and appropriate pastoral care, and it should not prohibit individuals from discussing or exploring their sexual orientation or gender identity with therapists or faith leaders in a non-judgmental, non-directive manner. If we go back to the three prongs that he suggested should be included in the definition, having to target an individual or group on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity with a view to suppressing or changing it, that would not cover ordinary religious teaching or appropriate pastoral care. Just to follow that up, I think that's very helpful both of your answers in regard to that. There will be people, and obviously there are different religious teachings from different faith groups on this, so it is not a standard thing, but there will be those within different faiths, whether that is some Christian faith, Judaism, and those from the Muslim faith. There will be different teachings with it, but some would argue that celibacy, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is a lifestyle that should take place out with marriage. Again, I've had conversations with people around these issues, hopefully not in a non-judgmental way, but just listening to them and then seeking to play and advise them. Again, just so it's on the record, you would see that as a legitimate thing for a minister or a councillor to do without trying to change necessarily the density, but just to give them that partial support and prayer as they work through these issues as individuals. I think, again, going back to what John said, it comes down to the way the legislation is crafted. Countries and states such as Victoria and Germany have looked at this in detail and managed to come up with wording and legislation that covers all conversion therapy but does not preclude ordinary religious practice or pastoral care. Freedom of religion and belief allows us all to hold whatever beliefs we wish. We can espouse those views, whether in prayer or otherwise, up to the point at which we're causing harm and undermining the fundamental rights of others. There is that point to be found and that has to be crafted in the legislation to make sure that it covers what needs to be prohibited to protect LGBT plus people, but at the same time protects religious freedom and I think that that balance can be found. Thank you very much for that this morning. It's really helpful and in particular the analysis that you've given of the human rights that are at play because I think it's really important that we have a solid understanding of that, particularly if we're going to take a human rights based approach to this work, which I hope and believe we will. I have a question that kind of follows on from some of this conversation, so forgive me if it sounds like we're laboring the point, but I really think it's important that we get this right for all the reasons that we've rehearsed. In your submission from the Scottish Human Rights Commission, you've said that legislation should be drawn to ensure that there is no interference with religious thought or access to judgmental support, much in the way that you've just described. Can you tell us a bit more about specifically how that would be drawn and would it, for example, be a lifting lay from the Victorian legislation or would it be something different? Is there something missing from that or something that should be amended? I think you may get more detail on that from the people who are coming in the next session. I'm aware of the Victoria legislation and I've listened to the evidence that's been given on it so far. It sounds as though they have managed to come up with a way of crafting this that captures all LGBT plus conversion therapy at the same time protecting the ordinary religious practices, but I haven't had an opportunity myself to look at that in detail, so I wouldn't like to speak to that. However, I would also mention my colleague Louise, who couldn't be here today, who looked at the German example as well and also found there that they had managed to craft that balance. On the basis of what the special reporter on freedom of religion in belief has set out, it shouldn't be too challenging to craft that. It shouldn't be too difficult because we know what the harmful practices are that we're trying to capture. We know the general principles that you can hold whatever beliefs you like, you can espouse those beliefs, but only up to the point where you're actually causing harm to another. If we apply the three prongs that the special reporter set out, you're targeting someone or some people with a view to suppressing or changing their identity, which you want to do. Thank you, that's really helpful. Can I just follow on from that? On the international question, would you mind? I know it's a bit further down, but it kind of relates to the point about Victoria, if that's okay. In the Victorian legislation, the Equalities Commission has a specific role. Do you think that to mediate and to be an investigator, could this work in Scotland and if so, who could play that role? Well, I think the first thing on that is to say that it sounds as though the Victoria legislation has addressed one of the key requirements under international law, which is very positive, or two of the requirements. The administrative and judicial remedies that are provided for breaches of human rights should include investigating complaints and finding a way to address on-going violations, as well as providing restorative justice. I think that in looking in more detail at how this legislation could be crafted, careful consideration needs to be given to all of that. As you say, a human rights-based approach should be adopted to that as to everything, and that would mean, again, hearing from victims from different communities and different religious and faith backgrounds, and understanding from them what they need in terms of support and the systems that we would set up. I'm aware that, in Victoria, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission has been identified as the body to receive individual complaints, investigate, and then I understand, although I haven't looked at this myself, I understand that they have a civil remedy and a criminal remedy, which is an interesting approach and one that I think would benefit from further consideration to address some of the issues with criminal enforcement. However, again, I haven't looked at that in detail, and a human rights body, as opposed to an equality body, would be the appropriate home for something like that, if it was to be one or the other. However, the Scottish Human Rights Commission's mandate is quite narrow in the sense that we don't have a mandate to deal with individual complaints. We're almost precluded from looking at that, and that would have to be changed. Although the mandate is set to evolve with the Children's Rights Bill and the wider human rights legislation to come, potentially, that's specifically in relation to raising public interest litigation and not in relation to handling individual complaints. Changing the mandate to include that would need to involve careful consideration of resourcing but also structure to make sure that the commission could fulfil its full mandate across all its powers without detriment to any of them. We're aware, obviously, of the various legislations that are being passed or being drawn up across the world. We're aware of the Victoria legislation. We haven't reached a view yet. We haven't done enough analysis, I guess, to say whether there may be certainly learning from that, whether it's something that could be cut and pasted into the UK jurisdiction or into the Scottish jurisdiction. We don't yet have a view. We're also aware that there are concerns that have been raised about it. I'm sure that in every jurisdiction where these measures are proposed, there will be concerns raised. We're also aware that the New Zealand Parliament have introduced a bill as well in July this year, which takes a slightly different approach in terms of the definitions. I'm not totally sure about that. It also has proposed a similar remedy mechanism by suggesting that its human rights commission in New Zealand should take on the role of being a mediator or being able to take complaints or investigate. Certainly, as an equality and human rights commission in Scotland more of an equality regulator because of colleagues in the Scottish Human Rights Commission, we have a range of inquiry powers. We can take complaints in terms of issues to do with equality in the equality act 2010. I suppose if the UK Government, we don't yet know what their proposals will be, if their proposals were also to include some sense of a body. We said in our submission that there might be a space for a body to look at these sorts of things. We weren't suggesting ourselves at that point, but it may be if the UK Government brought forward legislation, it might look at us whether our current powers and tools would be suitable for this or would need adding, whether it would be across the whole jurisdiction of the UK. However, we have reached absolutely no view and the commission has not reached any position on whether we feel we would or would not do that. That would be the subject of whatever the proposals were and what we would consider at that point. That would be true in terms of any legislation that was brought and generated here in Scotland through the Scottish Government and the Parliament. We would at this point have no view about that. Before I go to Karen or a different area, Pam, do you want to come on the religion side? Thank you, convener. Good morning and thank you very much for coming along to give evidence today. My question is around the fact that we have heard evidence from other witnesses over the weeks in relation to the respondents to the survey. We found that nearly 60 per cent of the respondents came from Christian households. Therefore, taking that into account, do you think that there has to be further research taken to bring more evidence to support the ban on conversion therapy in Scotland? How would you see, including other communities and other religions, that the research carried out by the special reporter on religion and belief confirmed that conversion practices are carried out by all the major religions in the UK? Whether they are particularly carried out within one faith or another, the state has an obligation to protect LGBT plus people from those practices wherever they might arise. I understand that the committee is taking evidence from survivors, and it will be important to hear from survivors from all faiths, if possible. When the state takes measures as recommended by the UN bodies to carry out a public awareness campaign and educate about the harmful impact of conversion therapies and that they don't work, they should ensure that they reach out to all communities and all faiths. I am not sure if that answers your question. I have heard a lot in regards to conversion therapy on a personal level. Shame-based was one of the quotes that I have heard and has been retold to me. Conversion therapy is often undertaken within private spheres. It makes it really difficult to see the full extent. In regards to the evidence, is there a danger that some of that could be hidden due to the privacy aspect or what was discussed earlier in regards to definition, or is there anything more substantial that can impact on that evidence base? For that very reason, because it often is very private and concealed, it is all the more important that the committee hears evidence, if at all possible, from survivors and that that evidence is in a closed space, a safe space. I understand that that might be what is intended. As has been said by other witnesses in this proceeding, I have just lost my train of thought completely. It will be very important to hear from them. What will matter is the qualitative evidence, not the quantitative evidence. It is not a question of numbers and we may not be able to find out the numbers because of the factors that you have mentioned. We know that it is there and that it is extremely harmful. What matters is the quality of that evidence from those individuals. I would agree with those comments that there is some evidence out there. The National LGBT Survey provided some of that evidence. It is clearly still incomplete and there is still a lot that could be found out that might be helpful to build up a complete picture. In the 2017 survey, 5% said that they had been offered conversion therapy and 2% took it up. Whether the full extent of that is greater, we do not know because, as you say, some of this may very well happen. Across a range of settings, private settings, family settings and I think that some of the people who have given you evidence already have suggested some of that has taken place in the family. Our view, of course, is that the ending conversion therapy should be irrespective of setting. It is about the intent and what the practice is. We also make the point in our submission that, again, the legislation should be considered carefully so that the issues of parents and guardians who are dealing with children around sexual orientation or gender identity should not be excluded where they engage in practices that are harmful. Those are very difficult issues and how one would understand or manifest them in practice goes to the fact that there needs to be a suite of measures around support for victims, providing opportunities for people who may be experiencing that in settings which is not easy to record through schools, for example, if it is children. There needs to be, in our view, to end this practice, a whole range of different measures from supporting victims through to different ways that people can disclose where they have been subject to harmful practice and all those sorts of things. There will need to be careful consideration of what those range of measures would be to ensure that we provide the support for people who are experiencing this. As Barbara said, it does not really matter how many people are or are not, the practice itself is not acceptable and we need to ensure that it does not happen and that people are protected and supported. We engage with all the communities in this process who will have different views and perspectives on some of these things. You answered my second question within that. It followed on from that. A lot of aspects of this are so hidden. We talk about the legislative ban, but is there anything we can do to proceed that or in and around that? You touched on a few points there, but is there anything you would like to expand on in regards to that? I think the role of bringing it to people's attention, having public discourse about these matters. I think the role of education can play a very important part, because a lot of this is often quite hidden. Having open and public debates, the fact that the Parliament and most of the UK and Scottish Governments have said that they are going to ban this practice is really helpful. From our perspective, there needs to be a whole suite of measures and tools to be able to address all the different characteristics because of the way this often works. One of the key things that was picked up in the earlier evidence, including from survivors, was around medical support, counselling and specific medical support and counselling for people who have come through those circumstances. That is something that ought to be provided in any event under the right to health. Whatever happens with a ban is recommended again by the UN human rights bodies. The public information campaign ensures that that reaches all communities and all faiths and that there is a raising of awareness of the great harm that those practices cause, but also that they do not work and the scientific evidence in relation to that. Thank you both for coming along this morning and for your clear summaries this morning and the details in the submissions that you have provided previously. I want to follow on a little bit around how legislation might have an impact on health care professionals and I would include psychotherapeutic professionals in that as well. How can we ensure that the definition we use or the definition that comes in with the legislation, how we craft that, provides clarity around what practices are and what practices are not allowable? I think that there is something around medical professionals being able to offer support and guidance and advice on a range of options for people who may suffer from gender dysphoria, for instance. I would be interested in hearing your views on how we get this element right. We do ban what we need to ban, but we do not encroach on some of those very sensitive conversations that medical professionals should be having with a patient or a person in front of them. I think that our view would be that it is really important that the context of the medical setting, which as you say, might be more involved in terms of people who are considering gender reassignment, who might have more engagement with the medical or psychological or other forms of support than perhaps someone who is coming to terms with being gay or lesbian. That is not a universal thing. They might also need support, but it is really important that the legislation that is drawn up does not prevent medical professionals from doing their job professionally in terms of helping people who may have gender dysphoria or working their way through that. That is another example of how those two issues are different. If legislation is brought forward on those points, it needs to capture that difference. Most medical bodies already have very clear standards and guidance and rules about the therapies and interventions that people are supposed to practice. It does all come back to the core point about what conversion therapy is and about the intent behind it. It is about the harmful practices about changing an identity, not helping with or working with someone in terms of exploring their identities. I am not sure that the commission can offer you any sort of—we would not see it as our role to offer you legislation. We would, obviously, when that comes forward, either from the UK Government or here in Scotland, offer our perspective and comment when we have had a chance to consider it. I am sorry, I cannot help you with that, but you certainly outlined some of the key issues. The area of medical support and professional support is really important in order to get it right, so that medical professionals do not feel inhibited in providing the support that they need to provide and there is not as little or grey area as possible around those issues. It is also worth noting that the independent expert on sexual orientation and gender identity recommends that whether there is a ban on conversion therapy or not, states should adopt and facilitate health care and other services related to exploration, free development and or affirmation of sexual orientation and gender identity. Those services should exist in any event and should not be cut across by any ban. The key is that they be non-judgmental and non-directive. The ban should not preclude discussion or exploration of sexuality or gender identity with therapists again in a non-judgmental or non-directive manner. If a ban was to follow the three prongs that were referenced by the special reporter on religion and belief, that would not be caught by the ban because it would not be targeted at changing or suppressing orientation or gender identity. A second question that draws out some of what you have just said. What is your response to the suggestion that medical practitioners and psychotherapists could be criminalised if they do not affirm a young person's gender identity? There is a balance between consent and affirmation. It can be seen to be blurred if, even in law, we cannot legislate for blurred lines. I think that this was spoken to by one of the previous witnesses that the word affirmative can give the wrong connotation. The key is that it be non-judgmental and that there be no predetermined outcome. The memorandum of understanding that has been signed up to by various medical professional bodies including the NHS, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and many others, notes that anyone who is going into that space in terms of providing that sort of therapy needs to have the essential qualifications and understanding to do that and needs to go in there without any bias or predetermination. Professionals should only be engaging in that type of therapy if they are able to approach it in that way. However, what is not required, as I understand it, is that they affirm. Immediately, I think that the witness said last week that affirmative therapy does not imply that they must respond great and then affirm and continue down that path. What needs to happen is that there is room for exploration. However, again, it would be really important to defer to those with lived experience of this who can speak to exactly what they do need and where that line is to be drawn. Pam, are you looking to get at this point? I apologise that I skipped earlier to the international stuff. I realise that I then stopped the conversation in terms of your question. Pam, so apologies for that. The question I have answered has been answered by what we have said, but specifically in your submission that I think it was from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, you talked about a harms-based approach that must disregard benign intent. Given what we have heard about the rapporteur's definition of harm in the three prongs, we could assume it is that, but my question was how would you define benign intent? Yes. Clearly, the issue is what is the impact of whatever the intervention is around, irrespective of what the motivation of someone doing that. If the impact is, even if that is not what is intended, is around what becomes harmful practice that seeks to change someone's identity, then irrespective of the motivation or the goodwill or whatever it is of the person seeking to carry out that sort of interventional therapy that should be covered under the banning, so that there is no sort of get out in that sense. These will be challenging things I think we think to draw the legislation carefully so that we protect the people we need to protect, but also we don't inadvertently include medical professionals in this and also we protect the issues of freedom of religion and people in terms of their views and supporting people in terms of how they might live in their faith but also be gay or seeking to change their agenda. I think what's been found by the independent experts for torture survivors is that conversion therapies are inherently harmful, that they are degrading. The question of intent potentially muddies the waters and is perhaps why the special reporter has not included that. What matters is the practice, what the practice is aimed at doing, suppressing or changing, because that in itself is inherently harmful. We might look to examples of legislation where we have prohibited practices in other spaces on a basis of strict liability, that there is no requirement for intent and that there is no question of consent. For example, female genital mutilation, we could also look at more recent legislation in relation to physical violence against children where there was a defence of reasonable chastisement, which is no longer permitted. And also in domestic violence legislation as well. These are areas where I think we can draw a lot of learning in terms of very harmful practices that happen in a private space and also in terms of how we've approached questions of intent as well. Thank you. I think Jeremy, it's over to you. Thank you, convener. I'm just subbing today, but I went back and read the evidence from the last couple of weeks and read the submissions, which was really helpful. Obviously there's lots of laws already exist outlining torture, rape and any forms of abuse. And I was wondering, could you help me? What benefit would a new law have in regard to effective enforcement? Or is it simply we need the law that we have already here in Scotland to be enforced properly? I did benefit with a new law give. Is it pure? I don't mean this in a bad way, but is it more symbolic that it raises the issue within the public mind and maybe gives it a highlight in it? Or does it actually have a better legal effect in bringing more prosecution to where that would be appropriate? As you say, there are some elements of types of conversion therapy, corrective rape or things like that that could easily be covered under existing legislation and statutes. There may be other areas of conversion therapy that won't be so easily covered by that legislation. So it's about filling the gap to ensure that there are no gaps in protection for people who can experience conversion therapy, which, as a number of people have said in evidence to you, can have a whole range of things. So there may be elements of the criminal law that may need to be looked at to fill those gaps. There may be elements of civil law in terms of regulation or further regulation of professional bodies. It's part of the whole suite of measures, but clearly the UK Government and Scottish Government seem to indicate that, in terms of being able to end conversion therapy, there looks like there may need to be some form of legislation brought forward to fill the gaps that aren't covered by existing platforms of legislation. Obviously we'll wait to see what those proposals will be. I think it can also have quite a strong deterrent effect, which is particularly important for harmful conduct that happens behind closed doors. I think that that's been pointed to in relation to the approach taken in Victoria, that they expect that the civil administrative route there will have a strong deterrent effect. If it's combined with that raising of awareness and public education campaign, then the overall impact could be very positive and challenge the undermining of the dignity of LGBT plus people, which can make them more vulnerable to discrimination and violence. It has to be looked at in the round for its overall impact and not purely in relation to criminal enforcement, although having a specific offence will inevitably make it more likely that we'll be able to enforce it effectively, I would have said. It might be helpful, maybe not today, but even if you could maybe write back to the committee. I think where I would be more interested is where are the gaps in regard to the present criminal law. I absolutely take Barbara's point about the more holistic approach and it does highlight that. I think that it would be really interesting for the committee and for the Parliament to know where are the criminal gaps in regard to this. Maybe not today because I appreciate that quite a broad question, but if either of you could write back to the committee on that, I would certainly find that quite beneficial. Likewise, it's fallen on from the idea of some written evidence and thanks for the extensive evidence that you've already given us, but John, you mentioned that you were looking at the implication of the Australian legislation. If there are any thoughts around what we'd be keen to hear is the approach that Australia has taken versus the approach that New Zealand has taken versus the approach that Germany has taken, we'll obviously need to do something to get more evidence, but it would be good to hear your thoughts on that, if that's work you're considering doing anyway. It would be good to get a bit of a summary paper on that from you. Obviously, in consideration of introduction of measures in Britain or in Scotland, we have looked to the international jurisdictions as others have. We haven't done a full analysis or reached that, as I've said before, any conclusion that this is fabulous legislation and works really well and should be transported across. We're certainly not in that position with respect to Australia or New Zealand or any other legislation, as all of it will be designed for their own jurisdictions and may very well have. And I suppose we are waiting to see what proposals are being brought forward by the UK Government, and the Scottish Government said that they're looking to see that first, I think, before they determine whether they need to do something separate or different, or in addition to. We're certainly in that process, I would say. I'm not seeing any other indications from members. Thanks very much for your evidence, that's been really helpful. I'll now suspend the meeting to change witnesses. Welcome back. We're now pleased to welcome our second panel of witnesses. I welcome Dr Iggy Moon, chair of the memorandum of understanding coalition against conversion therapy, MOU, Gen Ang, director of development and policy at Just Right Scotland. Gen Ang is also appearing today on behalf of Amnesty International UK and the Human Rights Consortium Scotland. I welcome you both to our meeting and invite you to make some short opening statements starting with Dr Moon. First of all, I'd like to thank everyone for inviting the MOU to attend. My name is Iggy Moon, my pronouns are they, them and I am the chair of the MOU coalition against conversion therapy. I just wanted to say before I give my statement to honour two people who have really died recently, Jonathan Cooper OBE, who's a human rights lawyer, who dedicated a good part of his life recently to the conversion therapy ban around young people, and Professor Michael King, who sadly died a couple of weeks ago and was really an instigator of the whole movement about bringing about change in relation to conversion therapy. I also wanted to say thanks to Blair Anderson and Tristan Gray from the previous session, and I found their testimony incredibly moving. The MOU is a broad coalition made up of more than 20 organisations representing NHS Scotland, NHS England, the Royal College of GPs, the British Psychological Society, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Northern Ireland Humanists and translate organisations such as Clinic Q and Gendered Intelligence. Our goal has always been to protect LGBTA people from harm, and we know from research that LGBTA people, including those who are disabled or from black and minority backgrounds, are often pressurised to access services to change or suppress their identity. We know that the impact of that leads to anxiety and depression requiring medication, suicide attempts, self-harm, eating disorders, and in young people it leads to poor mental health, suicidality, internalised homophobia and transphobia and psychiatric morbidity. We also know that the age groups that are being targeted across the UK are those young people aged between 16 and 24, and they are the largest group being offered conversion therapy right now, according to the LGBT survey. We therefore support wholeheartedly the efforts of the Scottish Parliament to bring the United Nations Convention for the Rights of the Child into domestic law, as we believe that the voice of the child must be heard, enforced, protected and not violated. We believe that the child must be protected as well as adults by a conversion therapy ban in order that the identity of young people as well as older people is allowed to develop and that people may live freely from hostility and rejection that leads to lifelong pain. Overall, we believe that the practice of conversion therapy, whether in relation to the suppression of sexual orientation or gender identity, is unethical, harmful and must be banned immediately to prevent further harm. I agree with Blair and Tristan that there must be a fully comprehensive ban in legislation and we hope that the Scottish Government brings forward its own proposals in the event of any delay from the UK government. We believe that a ban on conversion therapy must protect both adults and children and we hope that the future of the historic cases will be redressed with compensation and that current survivors are provided with publicly funded support such as a helpline. We hope that there can be a co-ordinated approach but we also acknowledge that there are matters that the devolved nations could be working towards such as a survivors network. We basically want a rights respecting approach and that's why I'd just like to thank you for this opportunity. I am Mr International Scotland, the Human Rights Consortium Scotland, and just right Scotland strongly support the principles set forward in petition and urge the Scottish Government to enact a comprehensive ban on the provision and promotion of LGBTI plus conversion therapy in Scotland by individuals or organisations in all settings, public and private for all people in Scotland. The UN Declaration on Human Rights states that people are born free and equal in dignity and rights and without distinction of any kind. International human rights law recognises sexual orientation and gender identity as a fundamental part of our personal integrity and yet conversion therapy is not a neutral practice but is founded on the belief that sexual orientation or gender identity is wrong and that there is correction. On that basis it is a form of violence or discrimination committed against individuals because of their sexual orientation or gender identity and a violation of the international human rights legal framework. I'll summarise here because Barbara Bolton from the Scottish Human Rights Commission has just thoroughly summarised for you the position but it's clear in international law that this finding is supported by statements of the Human Rights Committee, the Committee on the Elimination of the Discrimination Against Women, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Committee Against Torture and the Committee on the Rights of the Child. All of these find conversion therapy to be inherently discriminatory and to amount to degrading in human and cruel treatment, which practices should be promptly investigated and prosecuted by the state. That brings us to the present petition and the commitment by the Scottish Government to ban this discriminatory and harmful practice as far as possible within the powers of the Scottish Parliament. We know that equality and non-discrimination lie at the core of all human rights treaties and ensuring equal protection for all people in Scotland against violence and discrimination is already embedded in our domestic legal frameworks, the Human Rights Act and the Equality Act 2010. We also know that some harmful practices are so difficult to tackle, that in order for the state to meet its obligations to its people, we require to take additional steps to ensure protection, particularly to look to people who are vulnerable to harm and also to provide restorative justice and support for survivors. We have already done similar work here under the powers conferred on the Scottish Parliament, for example in addressing some forms of gender-based violence. The Parliament has acted to criminalise forced marriage in 2014 and to increase protections for people at risk of FGM by expanding the scope of criminal offences in 2005. We are asking this committee to keep the petition open with a view for continuing to monitor the Scottish Government's manifesto commitment to take action to ban conversion therapy. We are also urging that any assessment by the Scottish Government of proposals by the UK Government be evaluated against these existing guidelines set out by the UK and other international human rights bodies. Where are the proposals fall short? Have a comprehensive ban with meaningful engagement with survivors and suitable resources to support training and awareness raising and rehabilitation? Let the Scottish Government take action to the full extent of its own powers to secure the necessary protection and support that LGBTI-plus people deserve against this harmful practice across Scotland. I have been asking people to take my first question to ask for a definition, but I think that you both covered that in your opening. Unless there is anything further on that in terms of definition, I think that you both covered it. We will state to Jeremy. Thank you for coming along and for the evidence that you have given. I want to follow similar lines that I did with the first panel, which I am not sure you heard or not. As I said previously, I used to be a church minister. People would come to me for talking counselling prayer and they would raise a variety of issues around it. I suppose I am just seeking a bit more clarity from both of you in regard to how do we protect religious freedom? The right to pray or somebody, the right to talk about their faith and how that faith works out in practice, to stop in a practice which clearly is wrong. How do we hold that balance? Briefly, how would you write that into law, which is the key thing? Well, when I go and speak to the local priests who I sit with and talk through certain issues, I feel that I am listened to and I feel that we have a good rapport and I feel safe. And I don't feel in any way that it's likely that anything will happen in that space that leaves me feeling unsafe. And if it were to do, I think he's always ensured that there is somewhere that I could take that if I didn't feel okay. However, I think that there are some people within different religions that have agendas that may fulfil a belief that certain things are not okay, homophobia and transphobia may become part of the thinking without them realising it. I feel that we have to be aware that we're not trying to ban from my understandings, we're not trying to ban people from being able to use a space in a safe way where the people that you speak with, you feel are able to have a conversation. But I think that's very different to when somebody wants to introduce certain practices or say certain things that are about preventing you from leading your life because of your gender or your sexual orientation or are making it very clear that that's not acceptable. So I'm aware that it's very difficult to put it into law but I do actually think that the way to go about that is probably to look at the Victoria ban and to work with people within the different professions around how to go about using, to make these spaces safe. I mean as a therapist I'm very aware that we need to be thoughtful about how that is done but I do believe that we can achieve that together and I don't think that that would be a reason to not introduce a ban actually. So I would refer to the work that has been done on this issue by the special rapporter on freedom of religion or belief who has given it some thought and rejected the claim that religious beliefs would be used to justify violence or discrimination against people on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. They've said it's clear that it's possible to exercise the unrestricted freedom of religious belief which we all have whilst restricting certain activities or behaviours which are unlawful in practice. So for example if we look back at the examples I gave, forced marriage and FGM, it is possible to believe or to hold a belief that those are worthwhile practices but the actual activity or indeed the arranging or the encouragement of that activity in the jurisdiction of Scotland is criminalised. So we hold that balance and I think I chose to use examples from Scots law rather than international human rights law in order to demonstrate that there are other examples we can look at here to ensure that we keep that balance. Also to ensure that any legislation that we did pass would be interpreted here in Scotland in Scots courts in light of that understanding. The other thing that I'll add which I heard Barbara outline earlier is that I would wholly endorse the idea that there has been some good thinking on these questions. I would point out that ordinary religious teaching and appropriate pastoral care would not be prohibited but actually for some people it is in a religious setting that they would be best able to access that non-judgmental and supportive and open environment in which to explore their gender identity and their sexual identity and for that reason it's important to actually involve religious and community leaders in the process of crafting both the bill but also the guidance and the support that goes alongside. I think that actually we can be a community in support of ending this harmful practice rather than seeing that there's anything to balance or anything at all that's here. Thank you both for your answers that was helpful. The first panel kind of pursued in a line where someone's identity is slightly different from someone's practice so I may identify myself in a certain way in lots of ways whether accessibility or sex or we identify ourselves in different ways but that doesn't necessarily mean my practice will be the same so different identities will practice differently. Do you see a difference there? So there may be roles from different faith backgrounds who would see celibacy as the right way forward outwith marriage and that would be a teaching that came from Judaism, some Christian faith. So when you're pursuing that, is there a difference so a councillor, a minister, a rabbi would make in regard to someone's identity which we're not necessarily looking to change but that practice of how we live their lifestyles? Is that something that can be looked at or is that too difficult a definition? So I think and maybe this is quite a narrow answer as you would have expected from a lawyer but I think what we're seeking is a prohibition on engaging with someone for the purpose or with the intent. So engaging with someone on the basis of their sexual orientation or their gender identity for the purpose or with the intent of changing that sexual orientation or gender identity. I think that if you look at this narrowly we would be looking at the intent in terms of the space that's being held open in that discussion. So if it is a non-judgmental, non-directive space or non-judgmental, non-directive environment then it should not fulfil of that ban. You asked the question do I accept that there's a difference between identity and behaviour and of course that's for every individual to interpret on their own terms but what we're trying to stop is this practice and the consequence of bringing someone in and engaging with them for that reason because of the harmful mental and physical consequences of that. I would agree with what Jenny is saying and I suppose really it seems to me that we need to look out the teachings and the trainings of all of the practitioners and professionals involved including maybe those from religious and faith backgrounds. And maybe some of this actually opens some of those questions to what people's agendas are when they're working with their constituencies and I believe that it is probably worthwhile that we work together to bring about some of that change. As a therapist if it's likely that some people are introducing techniques of counselling and wellbeing I think we can work together to find ways to ensure that people feel safe in a space where that's offered and that the people offering that are aware of what they can do to create a safe space, what they need to maybe make sure that they let people know when they come in. So for example a therapist needs to let people know that in the event of somebody not feeling safe these are places that you can report this person to and I would imagine that within faith organisations something like that does happen and I think that that's where we could all work together actually. I think there's been a big movement for example around child protection within the faith communities and how that is reported and not just, I suppose my final question which goes beyond a sur religion but actually just a therapist in general, how would you advise a therapist if someone comes in and says I want to change my identity? So not necessarily religious just purely wanting to have that discussion, is that a discussion that can take place or as a therapist do you have to say if the law became in I can't even discuss that change and how do we make sure that's done with the consent of the individual without being in any way manipulated? Well if it's in relation to therapy the MOU is very clear that we do not discourage or deny or exclude anyone who may come in and say I want to explore my identity around gender or sexual orientation and that's where it just click in I think with training because I'm very aware that in training psychologists and psychotherapists the training very rarely includes an intersectional approach so I'm very aware that for example I work with doctoral level students and I could say to them as I do have you explored what your agenda might mean for you and nine times out of ten they have not, it's not something that would have happened and reflective practice within training alongside theory is incredibly important now with that that allows us to open the space that says if you are an accredited registered chartered person, therapist and you've gone through training and your organisation agrees with the MOU which asks to make sure that ethical training is in place then it seems to me that nobody would be scared or banging a drum saying we can't ask these questions or we mustn't ask any questions about whether somebody has a particularly sexual orientation or gender identity because all of us have agenda, all of us talk about our agenda within therapy in some way so it would be silly for us to say you cannot speak about your agenda because everybody does in some way shape or form and or sexual orientation as they do about other issues but my feeling is that this is strongly linked to the way that we regulate and it's linked to training and curriculum development, there's no need I don't think for any therapist to feel that they are being told that they cannot discuss sexuality or gender I just don't think that that is credible not if people are in organisations that are dear to the MOU and the training and curriculum development is up to speed and that's really what I'd probably say about that Thank you for the information that you've provided, it's been really helpful both sessions this morning have been excellent Kind of on the same basis of what we're currently discussing, we heard this morning that the affirmative practice is about non-judgmental practice and very much in the circumstances you've just described around a therapy setting Do you think that at present current training and current support for therapists is adequate to ensure that people can provide that non-judgmental training and if it isn't what and where would there need to be an intervention in order to help get that, move it in that direction given the importance you've just described to the MOU and training practices as well In relation to affirmative therapy I think that we probably need to upgrade our thinking actually, within training of therapists and psychologists and psychiatrists and doctors there needs to be an effort made to ensure that intersectional thinking not just gender and sexuality It's pointless as thinking about gender and or sexuality without thinking about blackness and whiteness and disability, this cuts across all the things that a human being is, I'm disabled, I am white, I am trans, all of that sticks together and it's really important that reflective and theoretical practice brings that in and I think we can work together to look at the training and curriculum development In terms of affirmative therapy there are two takes on this, there's one at the moment that goes what's happening is that you're affirming somebody going from male to female, female to male which is a very crude and objectionable way of thinking about affirmative therapy Because in the standards of care number five in the late 1990s it was made very very clear that affirmative therapy is about offering a flexibility of thinking in relation to clients, it does not mean focusing just on gender, it actually means thinking about the way that somebody wants to talk about their gender, talk about their socialisation processes talk about the way that people may feel in the outside world, it offers a flexibility and I think that we really need to grab hold of this moment to stop this rather horrible language of affirmative therapy only assigning itself to gender It doesn't, affirmative therapy is the way that therapists work flexibly with clients, children and adults to ensure that they are in a safe space with an accredited or registered therapist who has gone through as much training as they're probably going to be on offer that I think needs to improve I think we do need as therapists and I think we need to acknowledge that it is incredibly important that regulation works with those people on the MOU and that we actually systematically look at what it is that we're offering and how that flexibility can be used to build a much safer approach to working with LGBTA and on the MOU intersex people So I think we need to grapple with some of the myths that are going around and create the space that says there's nothing wrong with affirmative therapy provided we understand what is meant by that term because it's being slightly distorted for the sake of some people who are making statements about what it all means when it doesn't quite mean what it says So I think together and that's why it's really good to have these opportunities to be able to say we need to work together, we need to look at regulation and we need to look at what therapy practice and training is about And it's very essential that it incorporates adult and child thinking in that way Thank you for that question actually Thank you It's really helpful Thank you Thank you Good morning and thank you very much for coming along to give evidence and thank you for such an informative summary and informative answers My questions around we heard from Blair, you mentioned Blair doctor We heard from Blair and he spoke about that 60 per cent of the respondents came from Christian households on the survey and therefore taking that into account do you think that we need to do further research for evidence so that we can hear from more diverse communities and religions to make sure that they're included to support the ban on conversion therapy in Scotland If you do think that, do you think that it should be heard in this legislation or do you think that there should be a secondary legislation to reach out further Thank you I think he's mentioning the Ozan Foundation findings I think, isn't that what we're referring to I think The LGBT survey I think probably does show that across faiths the conversion therapy takes place and is being offered So I think, I don't know how much further research we want to really do I think it's happening, we know it's happening, we have the evidence that it's happening, we need to stop it We have an opportunity and any young person that is born today and when they reach 10 or 15 and they have an opportunity to live in this world in a safe way because of what we have done That to me is one of the greatest statements of freedom that anybody could possibly ever have And I think that that is why we're here, that young person doesn't need to know who we are What that young person needs to know is that what we have done is created a safety and a security for their life And so with all due respect, I think there's a limit on how much research, how many consultations, how many meetings we can have It's an abhorrent practice, it needs to stop, we have that opportunity, let's do it Thank you for your response doctor Just in relation to that, obviously we all know that you've mentioned these things happen and we know they happen But there's a lot of religious barriers out there with culture, language And how do we see overcoming that to reach out to those people that really most need our help? I think we need to work together I say this and it's not easy, I appreciate that, we have a coalition And our coalition is predominantly mental health, national health, health professionals I'm quite sure that a number of people within, on the MOU, have religious affiliations And we work with the Ozan Foundation as well as reached out to different people to try and bring religious organisations together I do think there is that opportunity to do that work I would like to say that most surveys around young people are only looking at those who are 16 and over We haven't even looked at those who are under 16 and it's highly likely that they are open to conversion therapy But at one level, I think all the research is pointing us in the right direction But I don't know any other way but as working together This is one way of us working together And when we leave the room, we have to find ways to make sure that this continues To make sure that people have the safety in place But I don't think it rules out the ban I think that that is absolutely necessary Because without it, it continues Just to say, I remember several years ago now Before trans binary and non binary were included in the MOU That we were at a meeting where we predominantly trans-led organisations and some of the smaller organisations were advocating that trans was included on the MOU We were told very clearly by one or two people at the meeting that we needed more research We needed more research to show that transgender people were being persuaded into conversion therapy in some way, shape or form My argument to that was while we do the research, people are actually dying And I'm not going to be culpable to that And actually what did turn out is that the anecdotal evidence that we were gathering And I do think there's plenty of that around The anecdotal evidence, the testimonial evidence some witnessing is available And that was telling us that trans binary, trans non binary people were receiving conversion therapy And we moved to include it in the MOU And on the week where we were doing the presentation of the MOU at the Houses of Parliament in 2018 The same week the LGBT survey was produced that included in the conversion therapy And showed us that trans people were being offered conversion therapy That trans women were the most likely to have been offered it And that trans men were being currently offered it And so we need research but not at the expense of a ban And we have to find a way to do that Thank you Thank you Do you want to, I don't think, Jen? I wondered if I could just briefly respond to the question of whether further research could be needed in this legislation you said or at a subsequent stage And it was just to point out, I mean I did understand what you're articulating Which is that there are responses in that consultation exercise And that raised concerns from people across Scotland about what this looks like And I just wanted to emphasise that all of our organisations have come back saying that it's important that survivors of conversion therapy in Scotland are pivotal and engaged at the start So really from now in terms of feeding in real evidence of what this looks like here So we have international examples but for this legislation to succeed for us we really need to look at what we know about the survivor profile here And at the same time, I think that engagement and it probably should be in drafting primary legislation but also crucially at the guidance stage Should draw in people who have raised concerns whether that's in a faith based setting or in a therapeutic setting Because, as Dr Moon has said, the content of the ban is really quite clear I think that there has been a unified view across the evidence sessions you've heard So the only real question is how to make it meaningful in Scotland And that is really about addressing the particular communities and the settings in which conversion therapy occurs And to hear from the people in practice on both sides of this regrettable practice How this happens so that we can get to the root of it And I'll just say one more time that we have a good track record in Scotland in not being afraid of these complex issues And in putting in a fit forward and sometimes we pride ourselves on being first or early to ban harmful practices And to offer restorative justice to survivors Thank you very much, Karen Thank you You've answered quite a lot of my questions so far and I've been changing my question as I go every time it's been answered But I just want to thank you so much for being so clear, direct and articulated Really quite moving in some parts as well when you spoke of children in the future And this is what it's all about And you've highlighted as well that lens that we often get trapped into looking through the heteronormative one And you spoke about homophobia, transphobia, often internalised as well Which comes from a pressure to conform to that heteronormative society What I keep trying to pin people down on really is a ban on conversion therapy Would also need to be supported by a range of non-legislative measures And I want to ask from your perspective what more do you feel is necessary to support the ban And for example any wider support now and on going into the future Thank you So in our joint response we outlined a range of additional supports that we thought would be important to think about Some of that's drawn from international human rights frameworks best practice But some of it also again from our experience working against harmful practices here in Scotland So we spoke about the need first of all for leadership at the start around the affirmation that LGBTI plus people are not broken or disordered And whilst you'd think that would underlie obviously the decision to ban conversion therapy There is something about a strong kind of cross sector government and third sector statement That this is the purpose of the ban We're also looking to ensure that we target false and misleading and pseudo scientific claims That drive conversion practices and prohibit advertising and the permission of conversion practices We have also spoken about the need to ensure that survivors are involved from the start of this process And as we all know a truly co-producer survivor led process Means that we need to be open-minded about the other asks both in terms of resourcing and the shape of legislation and guidance to come It's important to fund properly awareness raising and training across the front line practitioners Who would be working to identify this practice to report it And the last thing that we've said is that there needs to be significant investment in support for survivors of this practice And here I would add just right Scotland in particular does a lot of asylum case work Including for people who have suffered persecution on the basis of their gender identity or their sexual orientation And I would add that you need to have regard to the number of survivors of conversion therapy in Scotland Who may have experienced a different or more severe forms of that practice abroad Finally we would just flag the need to also consider investigative powers Which I know that you explored earlier in this session and left open But as a lawyer I couldn't leave it that we simply ban without a mechanism for enforcement and accountability That was quite comprehensive I think that we've been very fortunate on the MOU that we have had support from Alicia Kearns The Conservative MP who set out the wording and a number of proposals around banning conversion therapy And I suppose we're looking certainly at survivors In fact we're doing a piece of research with a young man at Cisco at Warwick University In terms of researching what do survivors want from what support do they want So basically we want to try and find out what survivors who are out there What support they would need in terms of a helpline And that's one thing that we want to ensure is in place But actually as we're talking right now if there isn't a ban Then the survivors the numbers are going to grow And there won't only be there'll be adults and children And that's likely to be in the future We also just want to make sure that therapists and those undergoing psychotherapy training Are mandated around ensuring that their training is properly set out That we work with organisations to ensure that intersectionality is incorporated And that will include gender and sexual orientation And that basically the training organisations, healthcare providers, GPs Are aware of being able to practice safely We want to make sure that young people are protected And that there is something in place to ensure that parents and legal guardians Do protect young children from conversion therapy And that advertising conversion therapy in any way needs to be addressed I mean there are a number of organisations right now That are using language in a particular way That presents that you can explore your gender in a safe way But actually when you dig down into it you realise that most of those people Do not want to be on the MOU They don't agree with the MOU And that actually this extended exploration of someone's traumatised history Is really a way of preventing them from being able to live their life Or be the gender or sexual orientation they wish to be So we would like to see something that addresses that Thank you Thank you Thanks Yeah, I was really happy, thank you Thanks Pam, but do you want to come in that area before I go to Maggie on That's okay, thank you I just to echo what my colleague Adam has already said About the strength and power of your testimony I think it's probably one of the most powerful statements I've heard In a long time particularly around what he said about young people But also the need to just get on and ban it And not necessarily focus too much more on time and research and things And forgive me, I have some skepticism around the UK Government's approach In terms of all of this But in particular I know that for example I think a lot of the evidence we've heard so far Suggests that there's much that we can do in Scotland Within the devolved capabilities and responsibilities of this Parliament Which I'm pleased to hear On the point about regulation that we've heard And particularly again around the training and the need for us to get that right Do you think we need ultimately to wait for reserved legislation on that Or the reserved powers around regulation Or is there something we can do here in Scotland That might specifically address some of the areas that you've pointed out I think that there are things that you can do right now in Scotland I think that it's so important to make sure that the ban is implemented That that's addressed in the way that you can So that you can move ahead I just feel that being in this committee is an incredible statement I think this committee when I looked at the people on it And I looked at what the work is that you're achieving I just think that that is, it sets a precedent It is actually changing things And that's really what it's about I mean, I don't want to say anything about where the UK is at But if we carry on delaying Then there need to be answers to questions as to why there is a delay I don't know why there is a delay I come here and I am incredibly pleased to see that there are people Who actively want to make a change We have the information I've got tonnes of papers I can go home, I can bring you wadges of books and papers And consultations But we're here, I hope that you're going to do this Because it is about changing the lives of people Now I identify as trans and I'm knocking on a bit But there are young people Who desperately need to know that they can live in this world safely Now that needs to happen because of what you implement It needs to happen because of what we do We need to make sure that the training is safe That young people can go to see a therapist And I'm pretty aware of a number of therapists Who are shuddering at the thought of having to think about gender And sexual orientation But these are things that we need to do We need to do them because that's part of who we are And it helps us to live in the world I'm trans and I have a disability It doesn't make my life easy But I have to hope that legislation brings about changes So I can actually get on a bus These things matter to me But they matter far more to young people right now Because I'm hearing very... Gendered intelligence works incredibly well with young people Who are being attacked because they are transgender We cannot allow this We are adults We need to know that we have the power to make a change And I believe Scotland can do that And I think it's quite overwhelming to be here Because to hear that people want to bring about a change Is so powerful Because we can take that message to young people Who listen to this Parliament And they will trust that we will do What you are setting out here That is so important And I would just like to thank you, actually On behalf of those young people I think it's so important Thank you, that's really powerful So thanks very much, Maggie Thanks very much, Joe Thank you both for coming along today And for your very powerful and informative contributions Both previously and this morning I'm very mindful what you've said about Stop talking and let's get on and do that I share some of that frustration That you expressed that we are still talking about this You were talking about intersectionality And the real importance of that And thank you for bringing that in Because I don't think we've heard very much about that Articulated in that way My questions, I suppose, follow on from Or pull strands at what Pam and Jeremy Were talking about earlier Particularly around medical professionals And I include the full range of healthcare professionals From clinical medical to psychotherapeutic Can you give us a little bit more Or articulate very clearly for us How we need to provide clarity Around what is and what isn't allowed In terms of both that safe space That you were talking about in that setting But also in terms of therapists being Able to allow exploration Able to allow very challenging And confusing exploration for patients, For clients and for survivors as well Be interested to hear how you think Our definition in law will have an impact on that Well, in terms of the work that we do With young and older people I think part of a good training Is that we're not afraid to work with someone And say, look, this is the situation When I'm working with people I'm pretty aware of what's going on around and about And I need to say it We need through training, through case studies Through reflective practice To overcome our own fear I think a lot of this is often embedded in our own Anxiety and fear If somebody comes in to a therapy session And they experience depression We mustn't be afraid of being able to explore The dreadful places that people can feel Around depression I worked in alcohol and drugs for 20 years I've seen people die as a consequence Both in my own life and in the work that I do But we mustn't be afraid of being able to Sit with and talk about Or if people are unable to verbalise it To find ways of mediating those feelings In a space so that people feel That they are able to explore who they are Now, I'm pretty aware that some of the rhetoric That's been going around at the moment Is, well, you know, gender feelings What does all that mean? Well, what does anything mean about Depression feelings are Or anxiety feelings are But we do know an affective world Does exist And that we need to feel safe enough To explore it And to do that, we have to do that Through training Now, GPs and mental health professionals They need support in this Because a stone wall was found Many mental health professionals Do not feel that they understand Anything about sexual orientation And or gender I don't think it's difficult to remedy Most of the organisations on the MOU Can actually ensure that Some form of training is put into place In whichever way that needs to be So that people are not anxious About addressing gender and sexuality Race and ethnicity, religion, age In an intersectional way But I think it's, to be frank It's about radically thinking about The way that we want our professional worlds to be I'm aware that GPs are very scared Of prescribing hormones Because of what's happening at the moment I think that's partly because of training issues That don't discuss gender and hormones And also their very real anxieties About wanting to be heard In relation to what this treatment might mean But we've just seen the case In the Bell of Tabrystock case Overturned, and that's a good thing But it does mean that there are questions That we probably do need to think about In terms of how they go into training And curriculum development And I completely think that That's where it starts I think we're in this place now Because it hasn't happened over 20 years And I'm aware of that because I train people But equally, that our thinking socially Needs to be able to be done like this That we sit down, we think things through And we put things into educational packages To help young people to live a better life So I think, again I think it's about working together I think those things can be addressed I don't think there's anything that cannot be addressed That is going to prevent the being a ban I think it can be done And like you, doing is really important Can I just, I suppose, just pulling out Some of the evidence that you have produced From the MOU of medical professionals Actually practising some kind of conversion Or undertaking some kind of conversion practises What sanctions do they currently face Or is it because of that fear To talk about it, to discuss it Does it largely go unchallenged, do you think? I think that they're very scared to talk about it I think that there are some GPs In relation to religion and culture And belief that feel that maybe what they're doing Is that they don't want to treat certain people I hear a lot of people in the trans community We're not receiving the treatments That they should be treating There's obviously problems with access To trans healthcare This really does have to be addressed But it needs to be addressed properly It needs to be addressed thoughtfully It needs to be addressed mindfully So that people come on board voluntarily And that any issues that they feel they need to speak about Can be done in supervision Can be done in reflective practice I think we've got the ability to put things into place But I'm not sure that we are doing that As well as we could do I mean, look, 19% of people that experienced Being offered conversion therapy Or conversion therapy happening Were in healthcare settings That is a worry But it's not unusual I know of one young person A trans person who had an eating disorder And was put in a setting that was not In keeping with their gender identity And they were told quite clearly That they needed to pray And that their gender would change And these are not really acceptable practices And I don't think that, you know, amongst us all When we sat with our colleagues We know what they're saying And we know what they're thinking And I think we have an ethical responsibility To think about challenging To think about providing a space Where those people can find the support that they need Because it might not be coming from a bad place That does need to be thought through I remember years ago In training, in the NHS We would have weekly training on different topics I don't think that these things are difficult But I do think that we need to do them You know, together Pam, do you want to come on this point? Are you okay? You're covering a lot of our questions And your answers, which is great Jeremy Yeah, thank you Maybe I'll start with Jen on this one If that's okay And it's a question I think you heard I asked the other panel I mean, obviously And you described already We have lots of laws already here in Scotland And a lot of it is there to protect people From torture, rape and other forms The first panel said there were gaps Still with them below That this could maybe fill in Without putting them in sport Can you explain what some of those gaps are? And how that legislation would then fill those gaps in? Sure, absolutely And I suppose I did allude to this In my opening remarks So pointing out that there are You could, if you're acquired With existing legislation You could look to bring a case Challenging conversion therapy As a breach of someone's human rights Depending on the context But, as we know As we know rights are not real If they're not If they're not being enforced Or if people are not achieving protection And what we can see from the evidence Is that these are areas Where our existing legislation And by legislation I mean not just the framework But also the awareness raising That requires to go around that The support, the access to Advocacy to make you understand That this practice is unlawful And harmful All of those things are not in place And that's where states May require to take other steps In order to fulfil their obligations We're already saying We agree that this is unlawful practice But that gap between the law as it stands And the number of people Who are experiencing these harmful practices And who are not supported Tells us that action needs to be taken In those circumstances The strongest thing a state can do Is what we have done First of all, which is to take leadership Just around the issue And we see that We see governments do that Alongside social movements Communities and faith leaders In many other areas I think if we all cast our mind back Over the last 40 years We can mark the areas in which Widely held beliefs have shifted over time And some of that has been led By strengthening protection Against practices As we become clear That there's a gap So I know that this sounds a bit I'll come back to your question So to come back to your question I think the difficulty Around conversion therapy in the UK And again, I distinguish this from many of our clients Who have experienced more harmful Firms of conversion therapy abroad But forms that are already clearly illegal So rape for example As an instrument of conversion therapy And I just want to raise that To indicate to you for a moment What the far end of conversion therapy looks like But also what are the damaging beliefs That underlie it That we're seeking to stem In taking leadership around the idea That it is not legitimate to try to engage with someone To change their sexual orientation Or their gender identity So the difficulty here In the UK is as you've just pointed out An action like rape Or physical assault Is already illegal But there is other behaviour And harmful behaviour Which is not being captured and prosecuted Because it's not being picked up In the frameworks we have Just to draw another analogy Domestic violence, gender-based violence And domestic abuse is an area Where Scotland has thought long and hard Around this issue Whilst on the one hand There aren't specific offences There are a range of offences And there's a really good Cross-sector, cross-government approach To making it clear that gender-based violence Is a serious harm And a package of support that's geared towards Combatting gender-based violence That sits alongside other criminal offences Basically the prosecution of other criminal offences So just to maybe Appreciate a wee bit on that then Is it a more of a package You're looking for Of education around the clown office Around the procreate of physical Around the police Around civic society generally About this Rather than I still haven't quite worked out What a change of law Criminally, and I appreciate it To think civil, but criminally What would the difference Criminally be in regard to this And is it more to do with How we educate Society, police, crown Rather than necessarily To change the law? No, I think it is important to support A ban that includes criminalisation Of the offence And the reason for that Is because there's a gap there Where the harm that occurs So that's engaging with someone As I said, very often Speaking or taking advantage Of a position of power basically In order to try to change someone's Sexual orientation or gender identity That is very difficult to pursue And also is not possible to pursue In all contexts, so that is the gap And I would say that States have a choice of looking at At civil or criminal penalties But criminalisation of a particular practice Indicates again the severity And the importance Our recognition that there is a harm That we have an obligation to stop a harm From being perpetrated That is typically the sort of practice That you would be looking to address With a criminal sanction rather than Just a civil penalty Thank you very much, Pam Thank you, thank you, convener You said earlier, I think Around the need for investigative powers as well And we've heard through various submissions And also our understanding of the Australian And in particular the Victorian legislation That they've given powers to the Equalities Commission there to investigate, Monitor, intervene, et cetera How could this work in Scotland in your view And is there a body already that you could Kind of lift and lay those powers with Or where do you think it could lie? Thank you for asking I'm not sure that it's quite a lift in lay As you'll all be aware Having just heard from my colleagues At the Scottish Human Rights Commission And the Equality and Rights Commission There's a particular framework That the national institutions Have worked out here in Scotland Which is different in other jurisdictions I'm inclined to believe That if this were a criminal offence That the main body of the rights That we'd be looking to protect Are based on our human rights framework And so perhaps the Scottish Human Rights Commission Would be the appropriate body But I'm also going to add I'm just going to agree with what my colleague said Which is at this stage It's difficult to know what the UK Government's going to do What the Scottish Government's going to do And it would be foolish of me to To make a proposal that is impractical In terms of what could be done But I will highlight that As you know The law is not effective if it's not enforceable And that actually leadership is everything And I think this is one of the reasons Why a body with investigatory powers But also the responsibility to monitor And to hold to account is important In the context of new legislation Banning a harmful practice At least particularly in the first Sort of five to ten years When we are all coming to terms with And coming to understand what this means Okay Thank you Any other questions from members? No Okay, well thanks very much That's been really extensive evidence And been really helpful to the committee's work So thanks very much Again, more suspended briefly