Chamber and committees

Thank you, convener. I also thank the witnesses for their patience. I have a couple of points about the research question. John Greenall said that we need more randomised control trials. We have heard quite a lot of evidence from people that, because of the numbers that are involved, we also need to focus on a lot of the qualitative evidence. It is important to put that point on the record.

I want to ask about prayer. Forgive me for probing the issue at this time, but I think that it is important to do so. I am really pleased to hear from Anthony Horan that his office has said that the focus should be on all therapies that claim to change or suppress sexual orientation or gender. Can you explain how that could work in relation to prayer or teachings in harmony with the teaching of the church? What would the goal of the prayer be? Does the church offer prayer support for heterosexual people having sex outwith marriage?

In addition, I have some concerns about the group Courage. From comments made by the church to the media, I understand that:

“Courage provides pastoral support for those experiencing same-sex attraction who want to grow in holiness by living live chaste lives.”

Can you can confirm whether the work of Courage seeks to suppress parts of someone’s sexuality? Is that targeted at LGBT people only?

Good morning, panel. To be honest, I do not know quite where to start, so I will begin with the issue of definition, if that is all right.

I am interested in hearing a bit more about, and in unpicking, the notion of forced and coercive practices. We have heard from various people that a person cannot consent to something that is considered to be torturous, and the committee has certainly heard about some horrific experiences that people have gone through. Some of those experiences, such as corrective rape, have been in the realm of what Piers Shepherd mentioned, but some of them have brought about psychological harm over a number of years in a much gentler way that allows someone to internalise deep-seated oppression and discrimination. We have heard that that has been incredibly harmful for people, so I am very keen to understand what you think the difference is between forced and coercive practices, if you think that there is a difference. If you do, can you define “forced”?

Can you also tell us more about your understanding of consent? The independent forensic expert group advised not only that a person cannot consent to torture but that they cannot consent to a practice if they do not understand its outcome. The group believes that there is no medical or scientific basis whatsoever for conversion therapy that aims to change or suppress someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Given that a person can consent only if they have all the facts and that the facts seem to suggest that change and suppression are not possible, how do you suggest that we consider the issue of consent?

I thank the minister and his team for the responses that they have given today, which have been really helpful.

I want to ask about automation and the ability to flex that in the way that the minister described earlier for people who might need a human being to talk to them about a situation. As I am sure that he will be aware, there is the “Tell us once” system, whereby people need tell the state only once—literally—that someone has passed away. That triggers a host of things, including stopping pensions, council tax, benefits and all the rest of it. That is quite helpful, because it lifts the burden of responsibility, which, as I am sure the minister understands, is particularly difficult at such times.

Has the Government considered such an approach in relation to people who are alive, to help them to access benefits? Could we create a system in which it was necessary to have only one touch point?

My next question—it is slightly different, but on the same theme—is on monitoring the uptake of benefits. What are you doing to learn from your work in that regard on the minimum income guarantee?

I have some questions on monitoring and targets. I have heard this morning and seen in the strategy that the Government is not necessarily able to identify all the eligible people. I heard your response earlier about disabled people and carers benefits.

However, in order to monitor whether the take-up strategy has been successful, it is important that we understand who should be taking the benefits up and what success is. Without targets or an understanding of who should be taking up the benefits, how will we deliver on the statutory responsibility to monitor the strategy?

Good morning to the minister and his team. My question is almost a supplementary to my colleague Jeremy Balfour’s question about disability and carers benefits. In the take-up strategy, you highlight that it is difficult to identify individual disabled people and carers. What engagement have you had with organisations that represent disabled people and carers in order to help you to do that? What research have you undertaken to help to identify who is eligible for disability and carers benefits since our predecessor committee recommended that that research be done?

I have a follow-up question. I appreciate your answer, minister, and I have little doubt that the engagement between the agency and individuals who come through the system will be positive and, certainly, a bit different from what has gone before it. However, it is the people who we are not seeing and who are not yet claiming the benefits who concern me. For example, in order to reach our targets to reduce child poverty, we need to increase uptake of the Scottish child payment to at least 83 per cent, but it is currently sitting at 73 per cent. What are the Government’s plans to improve on that, so that we meet our child poverty targets? Members know that, at the current rate of uptake, we will not necessarily meet those targets, so how will we find the additional approximately 25 per cent of people who are eligible? How will we find the other people who have not come through the system yet? My colleague Miles Briggs mentioned earlier that only 59 per cent of people have taken up funeral support payments. A moment ago, you described a series of engagements that you will carry out with people who have been through the system, but what will we do for people who are not yet taking the benefits up?

That would be really helpful. Specifically, could you outline when it is intended that the review will start and what it will consider?

Almost.

Take-up of the Scottish welfare fund appears to be dependent on postcode; there is significant variability in the success rates of applications across the country. In addition, we see more and more repeated applications for the Scottish welfare fund, which suggests that people are living in crisis. What is the Government doing to review the Scottish welfare fund and address the variability across locations and postcodes in Scotland, and what is it doing to ensure that people can access benefits on a more permanent basis to ensure that they have the money that they need to live on rather than consistently going back to what is in essence a crisis fund?

Thank you.