Chamber and committees

In the past, there has been discussion about loopholes. One issue is how to tighten up things to ensure that there are no loopholes in any new legislation, should a bill be agreed to, and that there are no unseen consequences or problems, or aspects that are open to manipulation. That would be about ensuring that, in relation to the organisations that you mentioned, things cannot, once again, be hidden or put into a different context.

It would be good to get a view on how you think that issue should be tackled, not least because of the potential for there to be that “dark underbelly” that you mentioned—that is, that these practices will be contained, managed and manipulated so that, on the surface, everything looks like all is going well and that things are being done as they should, while underneath there are still concerns about people’s sexuality, a ban is being flouted, loopholes are being used and individuals are still being put through the conversion process.

As the last member of the committee to speak, I, too, extend my thanks to each and every one of you for your strong and powerful testimony. It is right that you are here to give that testimony today, and this has been a useful and enlightening session.

There is no doubt that there is willingness to have legislation to end conversion therapy, but there are also complexities in how that legislation could and should work. A UK ban has been suggested, but it has also been suggested that more could be done in the devolved legislatures. I would like to tease out that important element with the witnesses.

The memorandum of understanding coalition against conversion therapy has suggested that there should be an expert reference group, which would bring together legal, academic and mental health professionals and organisations. If there was such a group, there might also be a participatory role for your organisations in the faith and religious sector, and an opportunity for your views and opinions to be heard by it.

Should the ban be UK-wide? Are there opportunities for Scotland to take a pioneering approach, as Jayne Ozanne has indicated? If more is to be done, might the committee consider a more holistic approach, involving joint discussions with experts and organisations such as yours? In the evidence that we have taken, we have heard that there is a level of acceptance in some groups. Should those groups be at the table? Some feel that they perhaps should not be at the table. It would be good to get your views on how you perceive that.

Minister, you mentioned the role of the health and social care partnerships, but I want to tease out what part the local authorities play. Have you identified any councils that require more support in order to provide these services or in which this is a key area of concern?

Has it been recommended or proposed that autism services be placed with the proposed national care service? If so, where would responsibility for scrutiny and accountability lie?

Obviously, the pandemic has had huge implications for the NHS, with individuals not having the opportunity to have operations. What is the Government doing to ensure that people do not have to seek private treatment? With the mesh situation, individuals had to seek private help. Due to the waiting times and lists, they could not get an opportunity, and they felt that they had no option other than to go private to ensure that they received the care that they required.

I am delighted to join the committee, convener, and I have no interests appropriate to this committee to declare.

I concur with Bill Kidd and David Torrance. I think that the petition raises important questions about trust in statistics and data. It gives us an opportunity to seek more views and opinions from stakeholders so that we can make progress on the matter and take a measured approach to what is a very sensitive and delicate situation. It is important that we engage in that way and try to gain as much information as we can so that a more balanced approach can be taken in the process.

In your opening statement, you acknowledged that individuals have been let down and dismissed, and you talked about the risks that are associated with the complicated situation that many individuals find themselves in. You have talked about lessons being learned, which is vital. What you have said is helping me to think that that is happening as a result of this process.

Where are we with longer-term research on hernia? We have learned from the transvaginal mesh issues and gone through those, but is longer-term research being done when it comes to hernia? If there is no research, how are you taking forward some of the issues that have been raised by individuals who have suffered?

There is a lot of discussion in the programme for government about participation and ensuring that we get democratic participation across the country. What will the Scottish Government do to ensure that it increases the level and the quality of participation in the budget process?

In your statements, you talked about the challenges that you face. Councillor Evison talked about fair funding packages, the idea of involving the community and ring fencing. You see all of that as potential opportunities for your organisations and for individuals.

What are some specific and focused asks that you would like the Scottish Government to look at? Are there budget areas that are real priorities for you? It could be about charging and the revenue that you can obtain, or about how your budgets are processed and the timing of that. You have touched on those issues already.

If I could get a short answer from each witness, that would be helpful.