���˿���

My question is about disabled people’s equality and human rights. You will be aware that the disability employment gap remains high, at around 32 per cent. A number of disabled people still do not get access to the social care that they need, and some of that has stopped and not restarted since the pandemic began. The Fraser of Allander Institute has said that we are not doing enough in Scotland to enable people with learning disabilities

“to live safe, secure and fulfilling lives”,

and tens of thousands of disabled people are still waiting for accessible homes.

At the summit that the Government held with disabled people last year—I think that it was in December—it was noted that, given the serious discrimination and inequalities that disabled people face, they rightly want a focus on actions as opposed to problems and continued plans and strategies. I welcome the Government’s commitment to a disability equality strategy, but what specific actions will it take in the short term to address the issues that I have raised?

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?

Yes. It is on a slightly different subject from my previous question—but it is on ending conversion therapy. The cabinet secretary will be aware that, last week and this morning, we took evidence on the need to end conversion therapy. One thing that came across strongly in that evidence is that we need to set out the Government’s policy intention in Scotland as soon as we can. Is it your intention to legislate to cover sexual orientation and gender in the conversion therapy ban? Do you intend to include the advertising of conversion therapy and to exclude exemptions in the case of consent?

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?

Do you understand there to be any gaps in equality data? If so, how could they impact on policy development?

I am interested in hearing more about the survey that you have just mentioned. Do you have any data on the experience of disabled people in conversion therapy? My question is similar to the one that Maggie Chapman asked about neurodiverse people, but, although that question focused on changing people’s neurodiversity, I want to know about the experience of disabled people and whether they are more or less likely to have had some form of conversion therapy. If you do not have that data yet, could you work with disabled people’s organisations on that sort of survey?

I echo my colleagues’ thanks to you both for coming today. I, too, declare an interest—I signed up to the pledge during the campaign, and I was delighted to be elected to Parliament to support the work that you are doing. I also thank you for your strong personal testimony.

My question is about the comprehensive nature of a ban, which has been mentioned. I want to dig into that a little bit more, if that is okay. What is the importance of including both sexual orientation and gender identity in the definition of a ban and in relation to its comprehensive nature? What are your views on the approach that the UK and Scottish Governments are taking? Is one more suitable than the other? Is this something that we should be doing in Scotland, or should we wait to see what happens at the UK level?

Thank you for what you have said so far. I am really pleased to have heard what you said about taking a cross-Government approach to equalities data, because I think that that is really important. Organisations that I have met have said that there is a real lack of data, so that approach will be helpful.

About 75 per cent of the 550 calls that have recently been made from Scotland to the Equality Advisory Support Service have been from disabled people asking about disability discrimination issues. Given that the service deals with all protected characteristics, that could be evidence of there being quite a gap in unmet need for legal advice on discrimination for disabled people. What is your analysis of underrepresented groups’ access to civil justice?

I have one more question. It is great to hear about the consultation and the depth of analysis that it has brought you. Do you have a timescale for when reforms might come in? I remember working with you on the matter, minister; it seems like it was some time ago, so it would be good to hear whether you have a timescale. Do you plan to look at access to justice beyond the legal aid system for people with protected characteristics? I am thinking about the expertise and support that are available from law centres, for example.

Thank you for allowing three questions, convener.