Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 14, 2021

Official Report 621KB pdf

---

Petition

---

Conversion Therapy (PE1817)

Item 2 is further evidence on petition PE1817, which calls for an end to conversion therapy. I welcome to the meeting our first panel of witnesses: Megan Snedden, policy and campaigns manager for Stonewall Scotland; Dr Rebecca Crowther, policy co-ordinator for the Equality Network; Vic Valentine, manager for the Scottish Trans Alliance; and Paul Daly, policy and research manager for LGBT Youth Scotland.

We are keen to hear a brief introduction from each of the witnesses. I ask Megan Snedden to kick off.

Rebecca Crowther and I have prepared a short opening statement, so I will start that.

We thank the committee for inviting us to give evidence and for commencing its consideration of the petition so early in this session of the Parliament. Our organisations—Stonewall Scotland, the Equality Network, the Scottish Trans Alliance and LGBT Youth Scotland—have been collaboratively engaging with the Parliament on the petition since the Public Petitions Committee first considered it in the previous parliamentary session. We strongly support the principles of the petition to end conversion therapy. We also support calls for a comprehensive ban that will root out conversion therapy practices in all their forms. In order to protect LGBTQ+ communities from harm, action must be taken to prohibit conversion therapy from being provided and promoted in Scotland.

The United Nations independent expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity has called for a global ban on conversion therapy. In a 2020 report to the UN Human Rights Council, he stated that conversion therapy practices inflict

“severe pain and suffering and result in psychological and physical damage”,

and that they are

“by their very nature degrading, inhuman and cruel and create a significant risk of torture.”

He further states that such practices are

“based on the incorrect and harmful notion that sexual and gender diversity are disorders to be corrected”.

The independent forensic expert group recognised that conversion therapies have

“no medical or scientific validity”,

that there is no sound scientific evidence that conversion therapy in any form is effective in changing LGBTQ+ identities, and that there is

“no medical justification for inflicting on individuals torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.”

We note that there is a united call across the LGBTI sector in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom for an end to conversion therapy. We also note that, as the committee has seen in the responses to the call for views, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, the memorandum of understanding on conversion therapy coalition—the MOU coalition—the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Mental Health Foundation, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, the Scottish Human Rights Commission, Children in Scotland, Amnesty International, the Human Rights Consortium Scotland, the Humanist Society Scotland, the National Secular Society and many religious bodies, including Sukkat Shalom Edinburgh Liberal Jewish Community, the Religious Society of Friends, known as the Quakers, and many smaller Christian denominations, are all in favour of a comprehensive ban.

We hope that the committee will consider holding a private evidence-taking session if there are survivors who need such privacy. Several survivors responded to the call for views. One said:

“I am a victim of a form of conversion therapy. I have struggled with my mental health and made attempts to take my own life. I do not want other ... LGBTQ+ people to go through what I did at school. It is hard to believe that conversion therapy can and does still happen ... Being cast out and isolated had a deep and long lasting impact on me ... Some LGBTQ+ people can be extremely vulnerable and feel isolated because we are already part of a minority and pressure to fit into a religious community can be a powerful driver in people feeling like they should change or suppress the fact they’re LGBTQ+.

I have been so damaged by prayers”.

Thank you very much. Unless Vic Valentine or Paul Daly wants to make an opening statement, we will go straight to questions.

There are a fair number of areas that we want to ask about and, with four witnesses on the panel, it will take for ever if everyone answers every question. The witnesses should make some sort of signal as to who will answer a question so that I know to bring them in. Some committee members might direct their questions at one witness or another.

I will ask the first question that I asked last week. In the written evidence that we received, many people from both sides—whether they are in favour of or against a ban—made the point that it is important that we define conversion therapy. Obviously, before we ban something, we need to know what that something is. Does Vic Valentine want to kick off on that?

We agree that it is important to define conversion therapy clearly so that people know what they should and should not do. One of the best examples of that is in the legislation that was passed recently in Victoria. In essence, conversion therapy is an approach that has a predetermined outcome for what it wants to do to an LGBT+ person: it wants to change or suppress their sexual orientation or gender identity. It is not about providing space for the person to seek support from someone, explore how they feel or talk to someone if they are struggling with their identity. Nor is it about working through what steps they might take or how they might live their life to come to peace with who they are. It is specifically about someone going into such conversations or practices knowing in their mind that being LGBT+ is unacceptable and seeking to change or suppress it in some way.

We are talking about all directive practices that seek to change people with or without their consent. That does not include gender-affirmative, supportive healthcare, which is a good thing. A ban is not intended to prevent supportive pastoral care, explorative supports or prayer that does not seek to change people. It does not include non-directive counselling or therapy. Nor does it include conversion to Christianity or any other faith as long as that conversion does not try to encourage changing or suppressing one’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

I thank the witnesses for coming. I declare an interest: I supported the campaign to end conversion therapy in all its forms.

The committee has received various suggestions relating to the concern that some medical practitioners might be criminalised if they do not affirm a young person’s gender identity. Rebecca Crowther mentioned what is included in the witnesses’ definition. What is your response to the suggestion that medical practitioners might be criminalised? Would the definition of conversion therapy provide clarity on the type of practice that is and is not acceptable from the medical profession?

On a base level, we agree that any support for someone to explore their gender identity is positive. People often need support through their exploration of their gender identity. It is not easy for most people, so we agree that it is great to provide support.

There is a lot of talk about a staunchly affirmative approach. The idea is that people only affirm and ask no questions, which is not normally the case in conversations about someone’s gender identity in services.

Vic Valentine is probably the best person to answer the question.

People sometimes misunderstand what “affirmative” means in this context. They rush to the assumption that it means that, if someone were to approach a medical professional and say, “I think I might be trans,” the professional would be expected to respond by saying, “Yes, you absolutely are. Fabulous!”

I brought along the definition used by the American Academy of Pediatrics, which works with trans and gender-diverse young people in America, which says that affirmative therapy is

“appropriate care that is oriented toward understanding and appreciating the youth’s gender experience.”

It says:

“A strong, nonjudgmental partnership with youth and their families can facilitate exploration of complicated emotions and gender-diverse expressions while allowing questions and concerns to be raised in a supportive environment.”

By “affirmation” we mean that, if someone has questions or concerns about who they are, a medical professional will respond to them with care and empathy and tell them that it is okay that they feel that way and that they can explore it together and find out what it means for the person. It does not necessarily mean that the professional points someone in a pro-transition or anti-transition direction. It is about holding the space for the individual to find out who they are and ensuring that they can come to that decision themselves.

Thank you. That is helpful. Your submissions speak about the need for a comprehensive ban. What do you consider such a ban to be? Is it likely that the United Kingdom Government will bring in a comprehensive ban when it introduces legislation to ban conversion therapy? Do you have concerns about, for example, the Prime Minister’s reference to “gay conversion therapy”, as opposed to LGBT conversion therapy?

When we refer to “a comprehensive ban”, we mean banning conversion practices that cover sexual orientation and gender identity to protect all LGBTQ+ people. We are talking about a ban that protects people of all ages equally—not only children and young people, but adults, too. We also mean a ban that covers practices across all settings, whether those are public, private, faith based, health or domestic. The most important thing for us is the motivation or intention to change or suppress someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity, rather than where it takes place or who conducts it. We also do not want to introduce any other restrictions on who can be protected by a ban on conversion therapy, such as people who are said to have consented to the practices. We are keen to ensure that there are no loopholes in the legislation in relation to whom it protects.

We are still unsure what the UK Government’s proposals will look like. We are aware that the Government is committed to banning conversion therapy, and it seems likely that that will cover sexual orientation and gender identity. The consultation on those proposals is likely to open at the end of September or the start of October and run for six weeks. That process should give us more indication of the proposals and whom they will cover.

We are keen for the Scottish Government to develop a policy position on the way in which it would like to see conversion therapy banned that sets out the red lines, so that we can mark the devolved action against the UK Government’s proposals. However, we were interested to see in the committee papers Kemi Badenoch’s comments to the Minister for Equalities and Older People stating that the ban’s territorial application is likely to cover only England and Wales, apart from in reserved areas, in which it would apply to the whole UK. That is an interesting indication that we are likely to need legislation in the Scottish Parliament, and we hope that the Scottish Government will develop its position on that.

Alongside an effective comprehensive legislative ban, we hope to see other work, including awareness raising and work with faith leaders, across different cultural spaces and with different communities, which will come at the matter from completely different perspectives. Of course, people who have suffered conversion therapy in different communities and cultural backgrounds will have different experiences of what it looks like. That is another reason why it is important for the committee to engage with survivors.

We also hope to see some civic work on investigations. The bill that was passed in Victoria in Australia this year gives that right to an equalities commission, and we suggest that a similar role could be given to the Scottish Human Rights Commission. It does not have those powers currently, although we note that the “National Taskforce for Human Rights Leadership Report” suggests that the SHRC could have more powers, such as the power to explore and investigate.

Education is important—we know that Karen Adam has some interest in that and might want to ask more questions on that—but it would be a mistake not to do the wider work. Cultural sensitivities must be recognised, otherwise a ban could just drive conversion therapy further underground and further alienate and harm the community.

Fulton MacGregor, that is connected to the area that you were going to ask about, so do you want to come in?

10:15  

I was thinking that as well, convener, and I got a good cover on it. Like Pam Duncan-Glancy, I declare an interest, as I also signed the end conversion therapy petition during the election campaign.

Megan Snedden has already given a good overview of the issues and, given what the convener said, I do not want folk to have to go over things, but I wonder whether any of the other panel members want to talk about the complexities of legislation, such as what the UK Government is likely to legislate on, what we can legislate on and how those areas might interact, where that interaction might hold us back and where it might present opportunities to go further. Does anyone want to elaborate on the points that have already been made or bring new points to the table?

The two main areas that might be reserved are around protection from abduction from the country, such as removing people from Scotland to undergo conversion therapy elsewhere, as well as an approach to regulating public bodies that is above and beyond the existing memorandum of understanding between many health organisations. As Becky Crowther said, a lot of the wraparound and civil stuff is potentially of significantly greater importance, but the bulk of the legislative aspect is about the criminal ban, and that would be fully devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

I have a supplementary question. We do not know exactly what the UK Government legislation will be in that area but, from our panel of witnesses last week, we heard tentative concerns about how it might be impacted by certain types of lobbying. Based on what you said, there is scope for the Scottish Parliament to go further and be more robust in the legislation that we bring out, given the concerns that have already been raised on the record and to the committee.

I do not think that there is any specific reason to wait for the UK Government’s proposals in order to try and work jointly with legislation that comes out at Westminster. It is fully within this Parliament’s powers to enact a criminal ban so, given that the committee is putting so much effort into hearing views and engaging with people, it would make perfect sense—and be a positive thing—for this Parliament to shape the direction of what the legislation might look like in Scotland, rather than waiting on Westminster, when we do not know exactly when that legislation will be delivered or what it will look like.

Thank you. I see by your fellow witnesses nodding their heads that they are very much in agreement.

I thank the witnesses for coming along this morning; like Pam Duncan-Glancy and Fulton MacGregor, I also signed the end conversion therapy petition during the election campaign.

I will pick up on a couple of things that you have said around cultural sensitivities and the definition of conversion therapy being all-encompassing, including behaviour or activity that is “with or without” consent or without consent and the notion of partnership working. If we look at those issues with particular reference to religious and faith groups and the tensions between religious and faith beliefs, understandings and practices, in particular, that “with or without” consent part could be quite tricky and might cause concern for some faith leaders. Could you say a little more about that? Do we need to consider any exceptions, specifically around the expression of religious freedoms?

I took the time to read through all 426 of the responses that have been published so far, and something that frequently came up, particularly from religious people, groups and organisations and those who support religious LGBT people, is that question about religious freedom. The concern that most people seem to have around that is the right to prayer and freedom of speech, which we came up against with the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill as well.

We are all for freedom of speech, and we are certainly not anti-religion. We are very happy about and open to people praying with and supporting other people pastorally and, as Vic Valentine said, engaging empathically. However, a line needs to be drawn where that treads into coercive control and is practised “upon” people and in a directive, agenda-led way to change that person.

It is going to be a task to get that definition right, but I think that most would agree that, if you know that you are actively doing something to someone in the hope that it will change who they are—in a futile way, because we know that we cannot change LGBTQ identity—you know that that is wrong. Banning that, or involving it in a legislative ban, would not encroach on religious freedom, in our thinking. Nothing within everyday religious or church practices should or would change. People can give a sermon or speak to their followers or lead a church service and say basically whatever they like, as long as they are not actively trying to change who somebody is, either in a private or in a one-on-one space, or by calling them out during those services and inflicting harm on them.

There is an idea that such prayer is lesser than, for example, electroshock therapy, but we know, and reading the evidence certainly shows, that that kind of prayer is harmful. It can lead to feelings of self-doubt, isolation and minority stress, and we know that that leads to mental health problems and can lead to acute mental health problems and suicidal ideation. It is just as harmful, to a degree.

I would like to make a couple points. A key defining feature of conversion therapy is that it has a predetermined, one-directional outcome: it tries to change or suppress someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity. On the contrary, neutral or supportive and affirming therapies, prayers or faith-based practices that allow people to come to terms with, understand and accept their identity are an entirely different thing. Those should be encouraged, and faith leaders should be encouraged to provide that kind of spiritual support.

On consent, I echo the comments that were made at last week’s committee meeting that people should not be able to consent to abuse. It is important to consider the question of why people would agree to conversion therapy. Many LGBTQ+ people will feel uncomfortable about that identity, will find it difficult to accept and will want to change it. That is because of the views of society and the marginalisation and stigmatisation of those identities. Conversion therapy is another form of repression and discrimination, and the state has a role to step in with regard to it.

There is also the question whether people can actually give informed consent to conversion therapy. The evidence shows that it is not effective, but it is harmful. The independent forensic experts group, which functions under the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims, concluded that for an individual to give informed consent to conversion therapy, they would need to be

“informed about the practices that will be applied, as well as their ineffectiveness, the likely physical and psychological harm that will result, and the inability to achieve the desired result.”

We also note that the law in Victoria defines conversion therapy as practices that are carried out

“with or without the person’s consent”,

and the bill that is going through New Zealand’s Parliament includes a provision stating that a person’s consent for the treatment “is not a defence”.

On the point about religious freedom, I draw the committee’s attention to the submission from Amnesty International, Human Rights Consortium Scotland and JustRight Scotland, who said that the United Nations special rapporteur has said that discrimination and violence against LGBT people cannot be justified by religious beliefs, that the state has a responsibility to

“protect the life, dignity, health and equality of LGBTI+ persons”,

and that

“banning such discredited, ineffective, and unsafe practices ... is not a violation of the right to freedom of religion or belief under international law.”

Thank you for that. Who, then, has the responsibility for ensuring that victims of coercion or the kind of non-consensual approach in a faith-based setting, which Megan Snedden talked about, know that what is happening is wrong? I suppose that it comes back to education and collective responsibility in society. Does anyone have something else to say about that? If people do not know that what is happening to them is wrong, how can they get out of that situation and get support?

I will make one comment and then pass the question over to Paul Daly, who will be keen to answer it. It might be a good idea for the committee to speak to people in the women’s sector who have a lot of experience around understanding how coercion works in the context of domestic abuse, and to ask them about how they message people who are suffering or have survived coercion. They might have something useful to say.

Becky Crowther covered this issue earlier. The bill in Victoria places obligations on the state’s human rights commission to receive and investigate reports on institutions that are undertaking conversion therapy and to educate in that regard. There is a place for involving the institutions that we have here and ensuring that they can visit establishments and educate people who might be given conversion therapy.

A number of witnesses have mentioned Victoria. Karen Adam has questions that are relevant in that regard, so I will bring her in.

Good morning. I declare that I, too, supported the campaign.

There has been momentum towards a ban, internationally, although some countries that committed to enacting a ban have stalled at the consultation process. In some nations, there is not the political or cultural will to counter the form of torture that we are talking about. Do the witnesses think that there is the political and cultural will here?

We warmly welcome that the five parties that were elected to Holyrood in the recent elections have all committed, in one form or another, to banning or ending conversion therapy. That is a really good starting point for this session of the Parliament.

Do people have wider observations to make about the international picture?

As they do not, I will bring Karen Adam back in.

It comes back to education, which Rebecca Crowther touched on. Outreach and partnership work might be needed with organisations that fear the consequences of a ban. Some organisations might have misconceptions about the implications of a ban for their freedom of speech. The issue is about striking the right balance and getting the point across that there is also a freedom of choice angle. Are we considering the international perspective and looking at what has stalled work on bans, so that we in Scotland can learn from that?

10:30  

It is actually really difficult to garner what is best practice or how things are working internationally, which I think is why we all kept our mouths shut when you asked that question. The legislation in Victoria is the only one that has been fully enacted, and that was only last year, so we have no longitudinal studies of, for example, how it is affecting people, whether it is going well, how it is affecting different culturally diverse communities or how education is landing in those communities. It is therefore hard to comment on that.

However, what we would all encourage and hope for is engagement with groups representing diverse communities. Edinburgh’s liberal Jewish community responded to the consultation, as did Hidayah LGBT, which supports and advocates for Muslim LGBTQ people. We are aware of some churches in Glasgow that are putting videos on YouTube, allegedly, of engagement in conversion therapy in the community, which is predominantly African. Those groups are best placed to speak on how to educate their community or work with community elders.

It would also be great if the committee were able to speak to the SHRC, which has done a lot of research on the different legislation around the world and how that is implicated in human rights. We know that, in Scotland, there is a bid to move towards a more human rights-based framework, and I think that that is a really important way of approaching the matter.

The international issue is challenging, but, as far as bans in other parts of the world are concerned, we have been pointing to around 20 US states, a few Australian states—Victoria, Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory—as well as Germany and Malta.

However, the challenge with looking at the longer-term effectiveness of such bans is that they have only been in place for up to five years; indeed, as Rebecca Crowther has pointed out, the Victoria law was passed only this year. That said, a number of other countries are looking at the issue, too; I am not sure what point of the process they have reached, but I am thinking of Canada, New Zealand, France, Finland and, of course, England and Wales. It is also important to recognise that Scotland would be one of the first countries in the world to ban conversion therapy, which again would set us out as a world leader on this matter. We should recognise the harms caused by these practices and take action on the back of that.

I will bring in Paul Daly at this point. Perhaps, Paul, you can also touch on what it would mean to young LGBT+ people if Scotland was a world leader in this area.

Sure. First, though, on the international question, one of the difficulties is that we do not know how prevalent this is, and it is really difficult to gauge how many people are affected. That is partly because conversion therapy works through shame—hiding things away and putting them in a box. We are never going to get any longitudinal studies of the impact of, say, the Victoria legislation, because we do not know the baseline. If we do not know that, we will never know the final outcome.

That is why it is so important that the committee hears directly from survivors. We are all happy to be here today, but people with lived experience need to have the opportunity to share it. After all, the impact of this will be felt by them and people like them.

As for the impacts of conversion therapy on young people, the report from the United Nations independent expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity points out that young people are disproportionately subjected to such therapy. It highlights a recent global survey that suggests that four out of five persons subjected to it were 24 years of age or younger at the time and that roughly half of them were under 18. This is therefore a significant problem for younger LGBT people—and, of course, the implications last a lifetime. The report recommends that states take urgent action to protect children and young people and that they carry out campaigns to raise awareness among parents, families and communities of the invalidity and ineffectiveness of such therapy.

Briefly on education, there is also a bit of supportive work to be done around this, not necessarily in legislation. For example, there could be awareness raising in schools and further education institutions, which might be the only safe spaces for young people who are experiencing conversion therapy. It is important that young people have some sort of safe space within schools and that guidance teachers and pastoral care teachers have some knowledge and are educated to be able to identify and support young people who are experiencing conversion therapy.

I will just jump in to make a few more points on the prevalence of conversion therapy. I think that it was mentioned at the evidence session with Blair Anderson and Tristan Gray that the UK Government’s national LGBT survey in 2018, which surveyed 108,000 people across the UK, identified the scale of the provision and promotion of conversion therapy practice in the UK and found that 7 per cent of LGBTQ people in Scotland had either undergone or been offered conversion therapy, including 10 per cent of trans people in Scotland. The practice was performed by a faith organisation or group; by a parent, guardian or other family member; by a healthcare provider or medical professional; or by other, non-listed individuals and organisations. It is important that, whatever is done, it reaches all those people.

Research in 2018 by the Ozanne Foundation determined that 58.8 per cent of those who had been subject to such practice in the UK had been left with mental health issues. Of those, 68.7 per cent had had suicidal thoughts, 59.8 per cent had been left with depression requiring medication, 40 per cent indicated having committed self-harm, 32 per cent indicated having attempted suicide and 24.6 per cent were left with eating disorders.

Last week, Pam Duncan-Glancy raised the issue of some people in the LGBT community—for example, disabled people—being further marginalised and perhaps facing more significant barriers. Disabled people may have carers, they may be unable to leave their home without support or they may be unable to speak to other people. It is important that such further marginalised people are looked out for. That is another argument for listening to survivors.

The question was asked last week whether disabled people are more likely to experience conversion therapy. I had a look at the data viewer for the UK Government’s national LGBT survey and found that, across the UK, 2 per cent of non-disabled LGBT people had experienced conversion therapy. That rose to 4.4 per cent among LGBT disabled people. There was a similar pattern among those who had been offered therapy but had not taken it up.

Good morning, and thank you for coming along to give evidence.

At last week’s evidence session, I asked one of the witnesses what impact their proposals would have on the support that is provided by religious leaders, specifically with regard to barriers of language and culture. Their answers were enlightening, and that has brought me to my questions today. Blair Anderson mentioned that

“around 60-plus per cent of respondents to the national faith and sexuality survey that I have mentioned came from Christian households”.—[Official Report, Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, 7 September 2021; c 15.]

I want to make clear something else that was mentioned last week: this is not just about religion. Scotland is a very diverse place, and it is crucial that the legislation reaches everyone from all religions, not just Christianity. No matter what we do, religious barriers exist, and we all know that they are often hidden. Rebecca Crowther mentioned cultural sensitivities, different communities and how we have to reach out to them differently. Paul Daly touched on how the issue affects people in different ways.

With that in mind, do you think that more research and evidence are necessary to support a ban on conversion therapy in Scotland? If so, what type of research is required and why? What about the outreach behind this? On the other hand, should we just press ahead with legislation and deal with any future issues surrounding religion later on, perhaps in secondary legislation? What role do the Parliament and this committee have in educating people? There are three areas there to think about.

That is a lot, although I tried to write down the questions.

My gut instinct is that, call it what you like—research, evidence gathering, focus groups, forums or whatever—the answer to all those questions is to listen to survivors from multiple faith groups and to engage with multiple faith groups and the organisations that work with them. That is not us, unfortunately. However, as I have noted previously, a few of those groups have responded to the call for views. My gut is therefore saying yes, press on, but press on by putting survivors’ voices at the forefront. Regardless of the views of any faith, the people who have suffered conversion therapy need to be heard if you are to hear how much harm it has caused.

You also need to hear about their experience within their own community. I am not a person of faith and I do not think that any of the witnesses is, so we do not have that sound understanding of different religions and how such practices work within them. Again, I just say to listen to the survivors.

We have compiled some case studies from across the UK of people who have experienced conversion therapy. They are available to view on the Ban Conversion Therapy website, and they include stories of people from Christian, Jewish, Muslim and non-religious backgrounds. I echo Rebecca Crowther’s comments about listening to the views of survivors.

The national LGBT survey found that 4.2 per cent of Christian people had experienced this, but the figures increased for Jewish people and people of Hindu faith, and the highest figure was for Muslims. We definitely need to engage with survivors from across our diverse communities and ensure that the additional measures that we are putting in place around education, outreach and awareness raising are getting to all our communities and are available in different languages.

Perhaps we could take some learning from other jurisdictions, maybe looking at Germany or Victoria. The committee might wish to speak to people from those jurisdictions to see what they have learned.

On communicating with different communities meaningfully, there is a history of legislation that does that sensitively, I believe, such as the legislation on female genital mutilation. That is not my area of expertise, but a lot of work was done to make sure that that message got through and there was successful and meaningful communication with the communities—the correct languages were used and things like that. It might be worth speaking to communities that were involved in that legislation and were impacted by that engagement to see whether there are things that we can replicate.

My comment was also going to be about FGM. Clearly, we spoke before we came here today.

I had a conversation with one of the people at the Scottish Government who worked on the FGM bill. One thing that we would hate to see here is no engagement with cultural sensitivities or diverse communities, because all that would do is drive the practice further underground, further alienating and marginalising people and causing further harm. I think that I said that before, but it is really important. If people do not understand conversion therapy, or if they are not aware of its implications or believe that it is the right thing to do— that is often the case; people do not necessarily intend to cause harm—it will just be more hidden and there will be more stigma around it.

Thank you for your responses. Rebecca Crowther, you just said that we should press on with the legislation but that there is further work to be done and we should engage with communities. Do you think that work should be done around the characteristics of race, religion, age and disability to identify the particular issue in different groups so that we can see what is going on in those groups? If you were to look at that, what would your outreach or research look like?

I agree—100 per cent—that we should look at the issue intersectionally and recognise the different experiences and barriers, whether by speaking to Inclusion Scotland about disability or by speaking to the Coalition for Racial Equality and Rights about racial equalities and rights, for example. Those things are really important, because the practice is experienced so drastically differently in different groups.

What was the second part of your question?

I was just asking what the research that pulled all the characteristics together would look like.

I am probably the biggest advocate of qualitative research around. I absolutely think that experience and qualitative data are the most important issue in understanding what is going on. We are talking about something that happens to a minority of people in the community, so any kind of statistical research on it probably will not tell you much other than that it happens. Even then, you will not know the extent to which it happens, because people might not be open about it. It is important to have qualitative research and to speak to survivors and people across diverse faith backgrounds.

10:45  

I thank our witnesses for attending this morning. The discussion has been enlightening.

In her opening statement, Megan Snedden talked about the loneliness, the suffering, the damage and the risks that individuals who identify in certain ways face. I would like to tease out something about the further measures that might be in place to support people. We have heard suggestions that a legislative ban might not be enough to end conversion therapy, and we have taken some evidence from organisations and individuals who have stressed that there needs to be a range of supportive measures in place across many sectors. Those measures might be practical mental health support, education and awareness work, support for survivors, and a range of developments across regulatory standards for professionals in many sectors who might be involved in such support. It is important that we understand that. What further support measures might need to be in place to ensure that a ban is successful in ending conversion therapy?

Wraparound measures outside are just as important as the legislation, if not more so. At the heart of this issue is the harm that is done to LGBT+ people through conversion therapy, and it is important to provide support to survivors and offer people who are undergoing conversion therapy an escape route.

There is a range of things that are important. We know that there will be people who have undergone conversion therapy quite far in the past but who are still experiencing long-term mental health difficulties, and there must be support for them around that. Obviously, however, there must be measures in relation to people who are undergoing conversion therapy right now. Those measures should include a way to report what is happening to a body that is able to understand the implications of that and to advise that individual about ways in which they can seek a route to escape what is being offered to them.

The issue of advocacy is also important. We know that, for lots of survivors of traumatic experiences, the criminal justice system can be retraumatising, particularly for people who do not know a lot about how to navigate the system. Sometimes, the system can be quite adversarial, and having to recount your trauma in a setting that is targeted at finding out whether you are telling the truth can be retraumatising. It is important that we have people who are able to help survivors to navigate the criminal justice system.

There are probably many other measures that I have forgotten about, but I am sure that one of my colleagues will pick them up.

The wraparound support should not be brought in only after we have legislation; it needs to be brought in now. LGBT Youth Scotland is a youth work organisation, and people have reached out to us to talk about experiences that they have had. The more this topic is raised in the media and on social media, the more people will realise that other people have had the same experiences as they have had and will seek support in addressing the impact that those experiences have had on them. Wraparound support is needed, but it should not be brought in in the future; it should have been put in place a long time ago.

I will add a brief comment, because this is something that we come up against a lot when we are talking about the LGBT+ community. A lot of work still needs to be done to understand how many things affect LGBTIQ people’s mental health. Many LGBT people have been through so many things in their lives that have a long-term impact, from not being able to serve in the army to being criminalised for kissing, and from living through the AIDS crisis to experiencing minority stress and social prejudice or living in a rural area and not having social spaces. Those things are just a small part of why LGBT people are a community that disproportionately suffers poor mental health. There is so much to understand around that issue.

The Scottish Government already does work around Covid recovery and the mental health of minority groups. A forum is in place in the mental health directorate that looks at equalities, mental health and the various protected characteristics. That kind of work can happen and, as Paul said, it can start happening ahead of anything else.

Each of your organisations exists to manage issues and support people, and you all have your ways of doing that. It would be useful to get a flavour of how you identify different needs and how you target support to ensure that survivors and people who are at risk come forward. Each individual is different, and, as you have identified, the experiences that people have gone through can be traumatic. Although some people might not wish to unravel some of those experiences, others might look to do so. How do you strike a balance so that people feel that they have the opportunity to come forward and get the support that they need?

We have many ideas, and we have had many conversations around that issue. Vic Valentine and I spoke to a national health service chaplain who also works in different churches and spaces around Edinburgh, and we all agreed that it was positive to give people a space in which to share their story but that it needed to be a space in which somebody could handle listening to that story responsibly. Talking about trauma often opens a Pandora’s box, and opening it but not being able to deal with what comes out does a person a massive disservice for the sake of policy work.

We are primarily a policy organisation, not a support organisation. Although we undertake community engagement, we do not have the training to support people. If we were to encourage you to listen to those stories, we would encourage the use of a very safe space—perhaps a one-on-one situation or a transcription of those spoken experiences. Somebody could be there who was not in any way a psychologist—we would not want to pathologise people further—but was a good, empathic, active listener who could handle the story well. I do not think that any of us provides proper support, apart from to young people.

We are a youth work organisation.

Speaking to LGBT Health and Wellbeing might be a good way to start. We know that its staff have received many calls and are adept at speaking to people about these kinds of things.

It is important that people feel comfortable. We have already touched on culture, religion and other aspects, including disability, all of which add to the complexity that an individual might feel they have to break through and the weight of what they want to express. They need to know that whomever they are speaking to will give them support and advice and, as Dr Crowther said, will not open a Pandora’s box that creates a more difficult situation for them in the future. Each of your organisations has an ability to balance that support. LGBT Youth Scotland does it through the youth work sector and others look at a wider area in trying to manage these issues. The challenge is in co-ordinating it.

Anecdotally, I know that seeing the committee take the issue seriously has already made a difference to people, who feel that they will be heard and that they might want to share their story. At first, many people saw the petition and thought that nothing would be done, or they did not even think that it was an issue in the first place. The fact that the committee has taken the issue so seriously and that it is here to listen to people’s experiences and views has already made a world of difference.

It is about providing that space—which is what we, as an organisation, specialise in—and facilitating those conversations, bringing people to the table and allowing them the space to explore. We will never be able to deal with everybody’s trauma. We would hope that people would have the strength to come forward; if they did not, we would not encourage them to do so. People do not have to share their experience, but we hope that there are people who will.

Fulton MacGregor might have a further question.

I had a round-up question to finish on, but I think that a lot of the issues have been covered. However, I will look at a specific angle.

The witnesses have talked about those we might be able to hear from to inform the committee further, and they have talked a lot about getting in people with lived experience, which I agree is very important. The clerking teams in this and other parliamentary committees are good at ensuring that that happens in a safe space. I know that from being a member of committees in the previous parliamentary session, and I am sure that we will make that happen.

Can the witnesses expand on the value they think the committee will get from hearing from those people? The answer might seem obvious, but it would be good to get it on the record. What do you think the value of that will be for the committee in taking the petition forward?

You will get clarity in a way that you will not get it from organisations that are not within the religious arena—if I can call it that—and whose people have not experienced conversion therapy. Hearing about the worst of a situation is sometimes the best way in which to gain clarity about what you need to do to prevent it from happening again.

This maybe touches on what Karen Adam asked about earlier. The committee will likely hear from LGBT+ survivors who are people of faith, but it is important to remember that we certainly do not see this issue as one where there are religious people on one side and LGBT+ people on the other. In fact, the survivors of conversion therapy are overwhelmingly, though not entirely, LGBT+ people of faith. Knowing that will probably help to bring a bit of nuance to the conversation and will perhaps diffuse the sense that it is an oppositional discussion. The majority of people who are impacted by conversion therapy are very much both LGBT+ and religious.

That point has been made clearly by this panel and the panel at last week’s committee meeting. It is helpful to have it on the record again.

We are out of time, so I thank the witnesses for their helpful evidence to the committee. Obviously, our deliberations on the petition will continue and we will hear from people—not least survivors, at an appropriate point—in a lot more evidence sessions on it.

I suspend the meeting briefly to change over witnesses.

10:58 Meeting suspended.  

11:08 On resuming—