Seòmar agus comataidhean

A number of the actions that you have outlined are not necessarily in legislation. For example, the targets on accessible housing are not in legislation; they are a matter for discretion, and that reflects some of the inequalities that still exist for disabled people.

You have said that there are plans for a national transitions strategy. Can you set out why that would be a strategy and not a bill or a legislative right at this stage?

It was clear from this morning’s evidence session that people think that a lot of the legislation in relation to the ban is devolved to Scotland. Is it the Scottish Government’s position that any ban in Scotland would include gender as well as sexual orientation? In addition, would the ban include advertising, and not include exemptions in the case of consent?

If that is okay, convener. I thank Fulton MacGregor for allowing me in.

Last week, I met representatives of an organisation called Tell MAMA—“MAMA” stands for measuring anti-Muslim attacks—who talked about the increase in hate crime that people from ethnic minorities have experienced. One of their concerns is that such crime is being experienced more in a home setting, from neighbours and people in their local community. That has a particular impact on the way in which we use our hate crime legislation. Do you have any plans to look at that issue? Do you plan to work with housing associations, for example, to look at how we could start to address some of those concerns?

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?

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.

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?

Earlier, we heard that there is a significant level of poverty among not just the 10 per cent of carers who will access the supplement, but the 90 per cent of unpaid carers who will be unable to access it. That is an incredibly important issue, and delivery is important, as you have said.

I understand that the bill includes regulatory powers that would allow you to set the rate at a higher amount if you wished. The Scottish Parliament information centre has shown that if the carers allowance supplement were calculated based on the rate of universal credit, rather than being based on jobseekers allowance, as it currently is, that would increase the standard payment to £711.46.

Given that you and your Government agree with many of us that, for example, the uplift in universal credit is essential to bring people up to enough money to live on, have you considered using the regulatory power within the supplementary bill to increase the carers allowance supplement in line with that and making it £711.46?