Official Report 586KB pdf
Conversion Therapy (PE1817)
Item 5 is continued evidence on PE1817, to end conversion therapy.
We will hear from faith groups that support the petition. Although we are hearing from four representatives, we have received a range of evidence from other faith groups, including representations from Jewish and Muslim communities. That evidence will all appear in our final report.
I welcome Rici Marshall Cross, clerk of the south Edinburgh local meeting of the Religious Society of Friends, Quakers in Scotland; Jayne Ozanne, director of the Ozanne Foundation and chair of the Ban Conversion Therapy coalition; the Rev Elder Maxwell Reay, member of the council of elders of Metropolitan Community Churches and national health service healthcare chaplain; and the Rev Fiona Bennett, minister of the Augustine United Church and moderator elect of the General Assembly of the United Reformed Church. You are all very welcome.
Members should refer to papers 3 and 4. I invite each of the witnesses to make a short opening statement, starting with Jayne Ozanne.
It might help members to know that I am a member of the General Synod of the Church of England and I direct the Global Interfaith Commission on LGBT+ Lives, which last year brought thousands of senior religious leaders from around the world to call for a ban on conversion therapy, among other things.
Conversion therapy is more accurately known as conversion practices, given that United Kingdom Government research shows that they occur mostly in religious settings and are definitely not therapeutic. At a minimum, it constitutes degrading treatment of an individual and, according to the United Nations, under certain circumstances, it can even amount to torture. Based on discriminatory beliefs, conversion practices undermine our right to a family life and our human dignity and perpetrate a continuum of violence towards us as a community. Those are clear violations of articles 3 and 8 of the European convention on human rights. States are therefore under a positive legal obligation to provide an adequate framework of protection for LGBT+ people.
Scotland has a unique opportunity to lead the world in this area, if it has the courage to do what the British Government is failing to do and provide a fully comprehensive ban that has no loopholes or get-out clauses. That will necessitate tackling head on the complex issues of freedom of religion and belief and freedom of speech. The group of senior human rights experts behind the Cooper report, which I convened and which Baroness Helena Kennedy chairs, has made it clear that actions to limit the manifestation of religious belief that are necessary, proportionate and justified must be taken if any ban is to hold. What is more, they are unanimous that, given the imbalance of power that is frequently involved and the significant number of vulnerable people who are at risk of being harmed, the law cannot and does not allow for consent to be used as a defence. Please, therefore, let us have a full ban.
As Quakers, our testimony of equality stems from the religious conviction that all people are of equal spiritual worth and that each of us is a unique and precious child of God. We believe that both sexual orientation and gender identity are sacred gifts, and we are deeply troubled by practices that seek to change, cure or suppress them. We would oppose efforts to change, cure or suppress a heterosexual person’s sexual orientation, we would oppose efforts to change, cure or suppress a cisgender person’s gender, and we oppose efforts to change, cure or suppress the sexual orientation and/or gender of LGBTQIA+ people.
Throughout our history, Quakers have been guided by our relationship with God to work to bring about a just and compassionate society that allows each person to use their gifts to serve God and their community. That has included equal rights recognition and an appreciation of LGBTQIA+ people.
In 2009, Quakers began actively campaigning for equal marriage, having officially recognised same-sex relationships since 1988. At our yearly meeting gathering in August 2021, we recorded a minute to acknowledge and welcome gender-diverse people in our Quaker meetings. Parts of that read:
“We seek to provide places of worship and community that are welcoming and supportive to trans and non-binary people who want to be among us ... With glad hearts we acknowledge and affirm the trans and gender diverse Friends in our Quaker communities, and express appreciation for the contribution and gifts that they bring to our meetings ... We rejoice in recognising God's creation in one another.”
We seek a Scotland where no LGBTQIA+ person will be made to feel inadequate or wrong, and where all will be supported in being their true selves.
I am a minister of the United Reform Church and am moderator elect for the URC in England, Wales and Scotland. I stood on a platform that was inclusive and affirming of LGBTQI people; that is partly why I was elected to the post. That comes from an experience about 10 years ago, when the Metropolitan Community Church of Edinburgh folded and merged into the local Augustine church. At that point, we set up an LGBTQI-affirming ministry. Interestingly, 10 years ago, members of MCC Edinburgh who joined Augustine were very anxious about joining it. The anxiety was about how they were going to be treated in a mainstream church, because a large percentage of them, if not all of them, had experienced some form of conversion therapy, which had been very damaging to them.
During the past 10 years, I have ministered with that community and, without end, people have come into our congregation who have found us because we are overtly open and inclusive. They often come through the internet. They are anxious about connecting with mainstream Christianity because of the hurt that they have had, yet they still express a spiritual desire somehow to connect with the community.
I have often met people who, during their teenage years—a point in life at which we often become more aware of our sexuality and gender identity—have experienced real harm through the Christian church that has led to mental illness, self-loathing and fear of damnation. It is very easy to break people; it is very hard to see healing and recovery from the harm that has been caused.
I am also the honorary URC chaplain at the University of Edinburgh and have met people from across the world who have had exactly the same experience.
A ban on conversion therapy would protect the vulnerable, would honour the medical evidence that gender and sexual orientation are healthy, and, from a theological point of view—from my perspective—would affirm that all are divinely created and that all gender identities and sexual orientations are intentional. It would be very helpful and would be life-affirming for all of us in the church who stand in that perspective.
10:15
I use the pronouns he and him. I am a gay genderqueer trans man. I am visually impaired. I have been a minister with the Metropolitan Community Church since 1993, and I currently serve on the council of elders.
MCC is a worldwide Christian denomination that serves the LGBT community and beyond. It was set up in 1968 by a gay man, the Rev Elder Troy D Perry, who was excluded from his church, his job, his home and his ministry for being gay. He tried to kill himself but, fortunately, he survived. He followed his calling and offered an inclusive worship service that was open to all LGBT folks in his home town of Los Angeles. He believed, as we believe today, that he was loved by God and that his sexuality was a gift from God, not something that needed to be hidden, to be ashamed of or to feel guilty about.
MCC has had a presence in the UK since the early 1970s. There are currently 10 churches in the UK, six in mainland Europe and 200-plus worldwide. I found MCC in 1989, and it saved my life. MCC has always challenged discrimination, promoted equality and advocated for the protection of human rights. We do that because we believe that God loves everyone and that that love is inclusive and celebrates and affirms all LGBT folks, with no exceptions.
For more than 30 years, I have been providing emotional, spiritual and pastoral support to those who have experienced conversion therapy in a variety of secular and ministry roles. I was the chair of FTM—Female to Male—London for five years. I was a founding member of Trans Masculine Scotland. I have also staffed LGBT Youth Scotland’s helpline and provided specific one-to-one trans support for young people and their families. I have several years of experience of working in the HIV voluntary sector at the height of the pandemic in the early 1990s to about 2000.
Following that, I trained as a social worker and worked in a children and families team. I am currently employed as a full-time NHS healthcare chaplain in Lothian. I have 12 years of experience of working as a chaplain in mental health. For a couple of years, I have worked as a chaplain at the Royal hospital for children and young people. In my post as a chaplain, I have worked to support the spiritual care needs of all patients, particularly LGBT+ patients, carers and staff.
MCC has worked in other areas of the world to support a ban on conversion therapy. MCC supports the ending of conversion therapy in Scotland, across the rest of Britain and worldwide. I support the ending of conversion therapy in Scotland, across the rest of Britain and worldwide.
I thank all the witnesses very much. I was going to ask about the definition of conversion therapy, but I think that the witnesses probably covered that in their opening remarks.
We have four witnesses. You might agree with what another witness has said, so do not feel obliged to answer every question if you do not have something else to say. We have about an hour for questions. The first question is from Pam Gosal.
Good morning. I thank the witnesses for their opening statements and for sharing their personal experiences.
Although no one is under any illusion about the need for a comprehensive legislative ban on conversion therapy, the committee is aware that some faith-based organisations might express concern that a ban might cross over into some religious practices. Would a ban on conversion practices have an impact on the support that is provided by some religious leaders?
Research clearly shows that the vast majority of conversion practices occur in religious settings so, yes, of course, if a ban is to protect people, it must impact on certain harmful religious practices. They are forms of spiritual abuse that we are not used to talking about.
It is important that we have a clear definition of what is wrong so that we have a necessary, proportionate and justified limitation. The law is clear. When the UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief spoke at the Parliamentary briefing at Westminster that I set up, he was clear, as are senior human rights experts, that we must limit the manifestation of religious practices—not personal views, but their manifestation—when there is clear evidence of harm.
We have recommended that there must be tests to determine whether a practice is an example of conversion therapy: the practice needs to be directed at an individual or group of individuals and is not just a general practice; and it needs to have a predetermined purpose of seeking to change, cure or suppress someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity—by that, I mean that there is a predetermined outcome that someone has to be heterosexual or cisgendered.
I am sure that you will hear pleas, including from people around this table, that people should be able to continue with prayer and pastoral guidance. However, I am afraid that those are pleas to carry on harming people.
The sort of prayer and spiritual pastoral support that creates an open and safe place into which people can go and where any outcome is acceptable and right is good and should be encouraged. However, when it has a predetermined purpose that is directed at a specific individual or group of individuals—this is the necessary, justified and proportionate limitation—I think that it must be banned.
Does anyone else want to come in?
I am employed as an NHS chaplain, so I work every day with patients, staff and carers who have completely different religious views from ones that I might have. It is part of my job to work with those people in a way that offers them a therapeutic space to talk about how they feel, what is happening in their lives and the big questions that are important to them, and to do that in a way that does not conflict with what they believe or what I believe. It is perfectly possible to do that.
I am employed as a generic chaplain, which means that I work with people of any faith or no faith to support their spiritual needs. I am able to work in that way every day, which means that I can provide support safely and securely and offer a reflective space for people to explore how they feel and what matters to them without having to put my views across. Therefore, with regard to the question of the proposal affecting the right to religious freedom, I can say that I work in that way every day and it raises no concern in relation to the right to religious freedom.
In relation to the urgency around the bill, what more can we do so that we do not hinder anyone’s religious beliefs and practices and, instead, focus more on the actual ban? We have talked a little bit about information and education around the bill, but I would like to hear further views.
Would the Rev Fiona Bennett like to talk about that?
I think that Jayne Ozanne has done more work on that.
I should perhaps have noted that there are major denominations, including the whole of the Church of England and the Methodist Church, and other groups of people, including many senior Baptist ministers, the Hindu Council UK and the Buddhist Dhamma Center, that have called for a ban on conversion therapy, and they have done that because they need a clear indication from Governments about what is acceptable and what is not. Once they have that, they can work within their religious communities to end it.
There must be a two-pronged approach. We need the educational element, but we must also remember that it is often a theological debate. You will often hear one side saying that it holds “the true orthodoxy”, but the truth is that—particularly in Christianity, but also in other faiths now—there is a division of theological opinion on the matter. There are many theological scholars on both sides of the debate. We need to hear about that but, most important, we need to hear about the impact on the individual.
In March 2021, Pope Francis gave a quite foundational speech in which, many have claimed, he talked about conversion therapy. He talked about the need to engage with the reality, not the theological ideology. As I think you might know, I met him to talk about this issue. He is concerned about the way in which religious teaching has been framed to impute harm.
We must give the religious leaders what they need, which is a ban, and then allow them to work with their communities, and fund that education.
Good morning. I thank you all for your testimony this morning.
Do the witnesses view this issue as one on which there should be no exemptions and no excuses, or do you take the view of some that the practice is merely objectionable? What do you feel about the issue of consent?
More often than not, it comes down to a form of abuse. There are issues of power at play between people who hold religious authority and people who are seeking. The issue of consent is a bit of a red herring in a lot of ways.
Fundamentally, freedom brings responsibility. The evidence of those who have gone through conversion therapy overwhelmingly indicates that it is destructive for individuals. The issue, therefore, is fundamentally one of abuse.
I cannot see a context in which I would say that female genital mutilation is acceptable. That is a physical process, so it is obvious. However, I see conversion therapy in the same way. We need to be clear that it is a destructive thing, one way or t’other.
The Cooper report, which I believe that you might have been sent, was produced by a group of senior legal experts and has been signed by a number of people from civil society and MPs from across the parties. That group has recently published a specific note on consent because we knew that it would be a key issue.
We are clear that case law does not allow for consent, even informed consent, where there is an imbalance of power and/or where a significant number of vulnerable people will be put at risk, even if there is a small minority of informed people who could consent. The law around female genital mutilation, forced marriage and domestic abuse does not allow for consent, nor does the law around wearing a seatbelt. Many people think that, because they are perfectly good drivers or because they live in the countryside and rarely see another car, they should not have to wear a seatbelt, but the law intervenes in order to protect the majority.
As you would perhaps expect me to say, I believe that Westminster has got it wrong in the proposals that were announced on Friday. I think that informed consent is a misnomer in this context. You might know that I went through conversion therapy in a religious setting—indeed, I actively sought it out, because I and everyone around me believed that it was the right thing to do, but I ended up fighting for my life.
In a medical setting involving informed consent, when a surgeon provides the patient with a sheet of paper outlining the risk, it is done in the expectation that the patient will consent. Few people go to hospital with a view to not signing the consent form, and the situation is exactly the same in a conversion therapy setting.
The law is clear and survivors are clear, and I think that, in a religious setting, informed consent is a misnomer.
10:30
I want to talk about some of my experiences of working with people.
Some people come and ask to be cured, changed or made better, because they feel that it is wrong to have the feelings that they have about their sexuality or gender, but we have to ask where they got those messages from in the first place. Internalised homophobia and transphobia come from somewhere and they tend to come from—at the top—the church, family, peers, community leaders and the media. I have journeyed with many people who have discovered that those messages are wrong. They have absorbed them over time but then begin to realise that, actually, the messages are false. They have a sense of liberation and healing, which comes from a God who loves them and is not judgmental, controlling or vengeful.
However, I have also journeyed with people who have not managed to make that change and have, sadly, lost their lives to the struggle for self-acceptance, which includes intense feelings of shame, guilt and emotional and physical pain. People feel worthless and powerless to do anything about it; they get completely worn down and are unable to see a way forward. Conversion therapy is damaging and harmful and its effects last for years and years, even when people have managed to move on with their lives.
I have permission to read to you a text that I received a couple of days ago:
“Very weird watching all the conversion therapy on TV news last night, I went through that at points between 18y to 21y before I broke away. Made me feel weird last night but today I awoke feeling proud and empowered and even more certain of who I AM than ever.”
That is from a survivor who fought to survive, but something as simple as a news report or an article in a paper can bring it all back.
Thank you for that.
What is being expressed by the other witnesses completely reflects what I would have said. Conversion therapy is underpinned by a belief that certain sexual orientations and gender identities are wrong, and that belief often comes from the same communities where conversion therapy is being offered. I agree that consent is very much intertwined with power and I question what consent means in that situation.
Good morning. I thank the witnesses for coming to the meeting and for your testimony, which is incredibly powerful. I also appreciate the strength of passion and feeling that you bring with it; that is really important for the work that we are doing.
I declare an interest: like other members in the room, during the election campaign, I supported a full and comprehensive ban on conversion therapy. I remain committed to that—the more I hear about conversion therapy, the more I want to introduce a ban as quickly as possible.
My first question is about human rights, although some of it has been answered by what has been said already. I also have a question about the children and young people that the witnesses have worked with.
As you are aware, the committee has heard from a number of faith-based organisations about the human right to religious belief, and your testimony this morning highlights where that interplays and where the line is. What specific human rights are at play in relation to people’s religious rights and people’s right not to be discriminated against on the grounds that they are LGBT+? Can you help us with ways in which we can provide reassurance to people who have those concerns?
Finally, the Rev Elder Maxwell Reay made a point about his work in the children’s hospital. I am keen to hear more about the work that you do around conversion practices in hospitals and the conversations that are taking place, because it is also incredibly important that we work with young people on that.
I do not want to repeat myself too much, but I think that, as I mentioned in my opening statement, the core rights are articles 3 and 8. With regard to article 3, which refers to degrading or inhuman treatment and even torture, all conversion practices are, at a minimum, degrading, because they are, as I think we have established, based on the belief that who you are is wrong and that you should therefore be treated as second class. The UN itself has said that many of these practices amount to torture, and as someone who has been through it, I can tell you that it is sheer hell. You have to live with the belief that who you are is evil and wrong, that you are not godly enough and that something is happening or has happened to you that will not allow you to find the healing that you so desperately yearn for. That is a form of psychological harm and torture—after all, not all torture is physical—and it clearly violates article 3.
Article 8, which is the right to family life, is also clearly violated when you are told to suppress your sexuality and to be abstinent for life. The term “abstinent” is different from “chaste” and “celibate”. Celibacy, for example, is a calling that you willingly embrace, because you believe that God has asked you to do it. When you are mandated to be abstinent for life—in other words, have no intimacy, no love and no relationships—that is crushing and is a clear violation of article 8.
You will hear arguments that articles 9 and 10, on freedom of religion and belief and freedom of speech, are being violated, but that is not the case. Both the UN convention and the European convention on human rights make clear statements on the matter and put in place limitations where there is clear evidence of harm. That harm has been well documented by all the medical professions, by the UN itself, by foundations such as my own that have done research on the matter and now in the UK Government’s own research, which was published—or rather, buried—on Friday.
As I said up front, I think that MSPs are in a unique position to do something that is truly courageous but necessary and which Australia and New Zealand have chosen to do. The UN is fully behind you in tackling this, as indeed are thousands of religious leaders, but we have to stop the perpetrators being able to continue the abuse.
I work as a chaplain for NHS Lothian, but, as you will be aware, I cannot talk about the specifics of my work. However, it might be helpful if I talk about my own experience as a child. I was never a girly girl—I was always much more of a boy—and at the age of 15 I came out as gay to a few friends. I managed to keep things quiet until I was 17, at which point I was sent by family to a general practitioner, who then sent me to a psychiatrist. I pretended that I was not gay to prevent me from having to go back again.
About a year later, when things were really difficult to hide, I was taken back to the GP and sent back to the psychiatrist. Against my will, I promised not the psychiatrist, who was actually a pretty good individual, but my family that I would not follow my feelings or discuss them any more. I was expected to go to church, as that would somehow prevent me from being me, and I was made to wear clothing that was not my choice. To survive, I went back to the same GP and was prescribed tranquilisers; to survive, I left the Church of Scotland, which I was part of, before any awkward questions were asked; to survive, I drank a lot, stopping in 1989 when I found the Metropolitan Community Church; and to survive, I left home when I could.
My story was completely shut down—I was shut down, I was isolated and I was alone. I was in a world that recognised me not for who I was but for who it thought I was, and it took a long time—13 years—before I could really be me and transition to being the genderqueer man that I am today. Had I been supported properly in those earlier years, I probably would have been able to explore who I was—my identity and what my life meant to me—much earlier.
As I said, as a chaplain I work with people who often have different religious views from mine. My work is always person centred, however, and is not dependent on one set of religious beliefs; rather, it is based on a set of values. The values that we hold in NHS Lothian are care, compassion, dignity, respect, openness, honesty, responsibility, quality and teamwork. I can offer a safe, reflective, affirming and flexible space for individuals, no matter what age they are, to explore what they wish to explore.
Conversion therapy experiences have been brought to that space many times, no matter what age individuals were. Spiritual care helps you to explore those things, to think about the big questions in life—the kind of meaning and purpose stuff that comes up—to which your identity is core.
As I said, the question that you need ask, which is straightforward in that situation, is this: what is important to you? The answer that I often hear is a desire to be heard, seen and affirmed, and to have experiences validated and acknowledged. It is quite straightforward. Helping people to find their voice, no matter their age, and to use that voice to create change in their lives, helps them to integrate, heal and become whole.
Thank you for that powerful evidence.
I am happy to hear what other speakers have said, as I fully support them. As has been said, many people explore their gender identity and their sexuality in their teenage years, and I would not follow any idea that they do not know their true selves until they are an adult and therefore should not be treated the same as adults. Supporting people where they are for what they want is the sort of support that we should have in place.
I absolutely endorse all that has been said. We are talking about religious rights and freedom, and it is about balancing those rights against the evidence of harm. People need to face that question.
Those who want to continue the use of conversion therapy have never admitted harm. When you take evidence from them, I ask you to push them on whether they will admit that thousands of testimonies in qualitative research, as well as the quantitative research, clearly show that harm has been done. We are not talking about ancient electric shock practices; we are talking about prayer and exorcisms, which have caused people such as myself to consider taking their lives. I would dearly love an answer to that.
I should have added that pastoral practice and prayer that is an open and safe space must be encouraged. As I mentioned, we are seeking specific definitions that are directed at individuals’ predetermined purpose, which would not include preaching, because preaching addresses a general group. That would mean that you could continue to hold beliefs even if we find them abhorrent, that you could preach about them, but that you could not use those beliefs as practices to try to make someone change.
10:45
Good morning. As others have said, the evidence that the witnesses have given today has been extraordinarily powerful. I echo Pam Duncan-Glancy’s comments about signing the petition during the election campaign. I also signed it and remain committed to the campaign. The testimony today has only strengthened my view.
The questions that I was going to ask have been covered by the intensity and depth of the responses, so I will ask two broad questions. First, where should the ban on conversion therapy be focused? I think that you have all talked about that, but it would be useful to get your comments on the record. Should the focus be on private settings such as the home and religious settings, or should the ban be focused on any other places?
In 2018, the Ozanne Foundation conducted some research on faith and sexuality. Last year, we carried out a joint survey with Stonewall and Mermaids on gender identity and faith matters. It is true to say that we found prevalence in all settings, including medical, private, religious and cultural settings. However, overall, by far the majority of settings had a religious-backed context, either in the home, in the church or in specialised ministries.
It is important to flag that, although more than half of the 464 people who contacted us to fill in our survey had been children, one third had been young adults between the ages of 18 and 24. A ban that focuses only on children will not cover vulnerable adults who, when they leave home and go to university, might get involved with large religious groups. I have not said that before, so it is important to flag that. The UK Government’s research shows that that is true.
There has been a tendency to focus purely on medical settings and clinical professionals. The UK Government’s proposals do not really mention religious practices at all, so the Scottish Parliament should go to the heart of the matter and recognise that, although it is difficult to engage with religious settings, that is where the problem lies. We need to be open and honest about that.
I agree with what Jayne Ozanne has said. I have spent a long time working with folk who have experienced conversion therapy, and they experience that harm and damage time after time in religious settings, primarily in the home but also in institutions. People do not even realise that it is wrong. For folk of my age who were involved in church communities or who were from religious family backgrounds, it was just expected that you would have to face this stuff. It was not considered that you could do anything about it. That is why I am so grateful that we are discussing the issue today and taking steps for change.
I echo what has been said. There needs to be a broad definition so that the ban covers any place where conversion therapy is happening. That would provide clarity and safeguards against harms. I agree that there needs to be clarity that conversion therapy is wrong in every place that it happens. Even though there have been steps in medical and therapeutic settings to say that conversion therapy is unethical, that has not stopped it from being practised. Professional places and religious settings—all places where conversion therapy is experienced—should be covered.
I thank the panel members for those responses. I will not ask my original second question, which was for the witnesses to discuss their experiences of supporting people who have been through conversion therapy, as that has been done by each of them at great length, and I am sure that that will come up again as we go through the rest of the evidence session.
Another question has come to my mind, however, if you do not mind me asking it, convener. This has grown in my mind as we have been taking evidence, and it has just been referred to. Much of the time, what we are talking about is children experiencing conversion therapy. We are talking about the possibility of introducing legislation to end conversion therapy in Scotland. Do panel members have any ideas or thoughts about how such legislation might have to interact with existing child protection legislation and procedures? I ask that from a background of having previously been a children and families social worker for eight years and having thought about the grounds of referral to the reporter and child protection procedures. Do panel members think that there is any overlap here, in that such legislation would need to be incorporated into existing legislation, including that to protect children?
I am sorry for the length of the question.
Those are important points, and I am afraid that I cannot speak specifically about your children’s law. However, the Cooper report strongly recommends a twin-pronged approach of criminal law and civil protection orders—a special protection order against conversion therapy, which would primarily be used in a children’s setting, where someone at risk can be identified as being at risk and can have the same protection orders as we would for any other form of abuse that the child may, sadly, be facing. That allows for an immediate intervention by the state that is proportionate and talked about, as opposed to heavy-handed criminal proceedings, which are better focused at institutions, rather than at individuals.
Dealing with family settings, particularly in this area, is complex. Children themselves obviously do not want to turn on their parents. There are many complex relationships that we have to navigate. We have experience of doing that, however, with FGM and other social domestic issues. We can build on what we know, but we need a specific protection order that names conversion therapy and which can remove those most at risk. Sadly, the suicide rates speak for themselves.
I have not explained this yet but, because I am so public, I get contacted a lot by many survivors, particularly children. We need helplines and support mechanisms so that children know that they can go somewhere in safety and can be heard and understood. I am afraid that that is not happening at the moment in medical or police settings.
I am no expert when it comes to the detail of the law, but one thing that I think will need to happen to protect children is education and training for social work staff. If this is something that they are not aware of or have never had to deal with, training will need to be provided, so that staff are aware of what to look out for when they are working with children and families.
I would completely echo the reverend’s point there. As a previous children and families social worker myself, I can testify that this is not something that we were trained on or asked about or something that we were consciously looking out for when dealing with individuals and families. The point has been very well made.
Like others have done, I thank the panel very much for coming along this morning, for sharing their personal and powerful testimonies and for trusting us with those. I appreciate that that is not always an easy thing to do. Like others, I have supported the campaign for a full ban, and I remain committed to that—as Pam Duncan-Glancy and Fulton MacGregor have already said.
I have a couple of questions. One is about the medical profession and one concerns the issue of wider support for people exploring their sexual identity.
There have been suggestions that medical practitioners might be criminalised if they do not affirm a young person’s gender identity. I appreciate that this is not an issue only for the medical profession, but how can we ensure that we work across the piece so that people are able to support young people?
In some ways, that leads into my second question, which is about how we can support people to have the safe and secure spaces to explore their sexual and gender identity if they are expected to conform but feel that they do not. How can we ensure that we genuinely have those open spaces that are not curtailed by any legislation that we bring in?
As I mentioned before, any therapy or medical provision should be person centred and should allow the person to explore their own identity, not direct them down a route that is based on the personal religious beliefs of the therapist or clinician. Therefore, it should be non-judgmental and non-directive. I see no reason why a ban on conversion therapy would prevent that from happening.
I know that there has been some talk about therapists affirming the gender identity of a client. Again, I do not think that there should be any concern about that, because the only person who could affirm a person’s gender identity is the person themselves. The therapist who is working with them cannot do that; they can only help them to explore that in a reflective way.
I completely echo those words. Gender-affirming care means that you create a safe space for the person in front of you—I was going to say that it should be survivor-centric, but perhaps it would be better to say that it should be client-centric. All medical professionals know that. There is only a problem when the professional has a predetermined view of what their client should be, so they cannot allow that person to explore their identity, because they do not believe that what they are thinking about is possible. The Cooper report deals with that in some depth, so I refer you to it. However, I think that the phrase is quite a simple one that has been misused and, if I may, twisted by those who themselves have quite a strong agenda.
What we need are safe spaces in which young people can come to a point of peace. Some will have known who they are from their earliest days, when they started to speak; others will be on a journey. Each person is individual and unique and they need individual and unique therapy to help them come to that point of peace.
As we heard from Maxwell Reay earlier, there is a sense in which medical support or therapeutic support that does not have a predetermined purpose already exists. It is already happening in lots of situations. Therefore, I do not think that it is that difficult for it to be established.
As Maxwell Reay also said, a lot of people do not understand what conversion therapy is, and there are a lot of people who have gone through it who would not necessarily perceive exactly how they have been abused in that wider sense. I hope that a ban will raise awareness, so that people’s perceptions will be shifted, and that that will go across society. There will have to be training for social workers, teachers and so on, but I hope that the ban will help to shift the perception of the issue. It is about affirming and accepting people’s choice of gender identity and sexual orientation and understanding how subtle abuse and the use of power can be.
I hope that the ban will help with all that, but I think that, in a sense, what you are asking about already exists.
When I think about this issue, I see two elements, one of which involves the legislation and the ban. What would you like us to do about the other element, which involves education, training and awareness raising? That will not necessarily make its way into legislation, but if we do only the legislation, we are doing only half the job. We need to be clear about what else needs to change. From your religious or faith perspectives, is there anything that you really want us to do or anything that you would argue should not be done with regard to the broader support structures and mechanisms such as education and training that we will need to develop and resource alongside any legislation?
11:00
For me, there are three areas, the first of which is the survivors themselves, who need support and counselling. Galop has just launched a survivor helpline in the UK that requires funding and specialist therapists who understand the abuse that people have gone through, particularly in a religious setting. Few people I know will trust either a therapist who they see as mocking their faith or a Christian minister who they think will try to put them through this abuse again, so we need clear signposting. We also need whistleblowing mechanisms and research to identify repeat offenders, because at the moment there is no way of logging those things.
From an education point of view, we need to debunk a lot of the fake news that has been put out about this. There are clear studies that show the harm caused, clear statements from the medical professions and a large body of research, particularly at University College London under the late Professor Michael King, who sadly died over the summer. His department and many others have produced many papers explaining that the Freudian analysis—that is, that you are gay because something happened to you—is completely outdated. There is, for example, a belief that it is to do with what happens in the womb. You could give credibility to the peer-reviewed studies and discredit or debunk the myths that are out there—and I have to admit that there is a lot of fake news out there about our trans friends, too.
We have already talked about educational materials, which are needed across the whole social care system, and religious leaders. My personal view is that religious leaders should not touch this area of sexuality and gender activity at all; it is a matter for professionals. We often think of prayer as being very soft and harmless, but as with any other quite sensitive area, this particular issue needs a fully trained professional. That is a message that I would urge you to put out.
Following on from the point that Jayne Ozanne, in particular, has touched on, I would say that, although the committee has taken a lot of powerful evidence, we are still keen to ensure that we are not missing anything. If there is a piece of evidence that any of the witnesses think that we should be aware of, they should flag that up to us.
Jayne Ozanne touched on the Cooper report—we should provide a link to the report to ensure that it is easily accessible to anyone who is following the committee’s work. Is there any other work that the Ozanne Foundation has done that you would want to flag up to the committee?
I have mentioned some of that work already, but perhaps I can set it all out in one place. For the 2018 faith and sexuality survey, which was done online so the group was self-selecting, we had more than 4,500 respondents, of whom about a tenth—464—had been through some form of conversion therapy. That piece of research was developed with the Government Equalities Office, and we had an eminent advisory board chaired by Professor Sir Bernard Silverman, the former president of the Royal Statistical Society, and the Bishop of Manchester, the Church of England’s lead bishop on statistics. That eminent piece of research shows clearly why people had been through conversion therapy, who had put them through it and what the impact on them has been. I am afraid to say that it also clearly shows the role of religion in most of it, as well as the horrors involved, with accounts of forced rape in the UK.
In 2020, we repeated a similar set of questions that was aimed at our trans friends and which looked at gender identity and faith. That report, which was done with Stonewall and Mermaids, was overseen by an independent researcher.
Last December, the Global Interfaith Commission on LGBT+ Lives issued a declaration signed by numerous eminent archbishops, including Archbishop Desmond Tutu, as well as by a chief rabbi and other religious leaders at that senior level, calling for a ban on conversion therapy, and an end to discrimination and prejudice.
I have touched on the Cooper report, but perhaps most relevant for the committee is our memo on consent, which was issued last Thursday. I will make that available. The Cooper report has a section on consent, but we felt, as we have now seen with the Government, that further evidence was needed on why the case needs to be so clear. That is the evidence that I would point you to.
Does anyone else have any other evidence? Maxwell Reay mentioned some direct evidence in texts and suchlike.
I have also written a paper for the European Journal of Human Rights on the issue of religious freedom and the law, which was eminently peer reviewed. I think that that is quite apposite in this case.
Given that it was suggested earlier on that there might not be enough evidence, and that we needed to go away and do more research, it would be useful if we could pull together those references so that people can see the wider picture.
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.
As I understand it, the UK Government’s proposals, which were published last Friday, made it clear that those cover only England and Wales, and that it sees this as a devolved matter. If you will forgive me for saying so, although I am sure that you are aware, I believe that that frees this Parliament to go in the same direction as New Zealand, Australia and others, and have a clear, full ban. I know that you have the willingness to do that, but that is what survivors are calling for.
I would suggest that the best experts are those who have been through conversion therapy. Too often, we look to people who, frankly, although they have letters after their names, do not always have the lived experience to understand what is going on. There are people with lived experience in the academic, medical and religious sectors, and in the social care system. As head of my foundation, I would be very keen to be involved, as much or as little as the committee would like, because of that connection with religious leaders who understand that this is spiritual abuse and want to see a lead that they can follow.
For me, what really needs to happen is a conversation about the dark side of religion—where religion goes wrong. If I can be brutally honest, we are often able to see that in other religions—when I say “other”, I mean the non-established religions—but we are not very good at looking at ourselves. I speak as a member of the Church of England.
Sadly, the horrific evidence of child sexual abuse has shown that we have a dark underbelly, and conversion therapy is one of its forms. The fact that it is done by acceptable, white, middle-class people does not make it any less harmful. We need to have a discussion as a society about spiritual abuse, and I think that this debate will be the catalyst for doing that.
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.
You are so correct. For me, that is why the definition of conversion therapy has to include the phrase “change, cure or suppress”. If you just ban changing sexual orientation or gender identity, organisations—as we make clear in the Cooper report—will change their rhetoric but carry on with the practices and just pretend to suppress them. We have evidence from the United States of organisations changing their name but carrying on with the same beliefs and practices. We need to have a clear whistleblowing and reporting structure so that we can track that and build a picture over time.
It is important to say that people like me are not on a witch hunt; there is a lot of fake news about that. We want to protect people from going through the hell that we have been through. However, we need to bring whole organisations to justice if they repeatedly continue to flout the law—that is why we have law. I see the ban as necessary, but protection orders will do the vast majority of the work to protect the individuals who are most at risk.
Jayne, in your answer to Alexander Stewart, you mentioned New Zealand and Australia. I think that Germany’s approach has been flagged to us in the past as well. If Scotland is to legislate, we obviously want to look at best practice. It would be good to hear your perspective on that, based on the research that you have done about the different approaches, particularly in relation to Australia and New Zealand.
I ought to explain that I convene a group that brings together nearly all the campaigners—we do not have the campaigners in France yet—who have been involved in succeeding in getting a ban in their countries, so that we can share our rhetoric.
Germany’s ban is good to a point, but it focuses only on minors; it does not deal with the significant issue of adults. Therefore, I would not recommend that.
Of the three pieces of legislation in Australia, the one in Victoria is seen as the gold standard. The New Zealand legislation, which has, in a sense, simply built on that, is very good. The Victoria legislation has some complications, which the campaigners recognise. There has not been room for compensation of victims, so they are looking at providing that. Also, the definition talks about “change” and “suppression”, but it does not talk about “cure”. I would urge you to ensure that you include “cure” in your definition, because that term reflects the mindset of many people who carry out these practices.
The Victoria legislation looks at gender-affirming care in quite some depth, and it includes civil protection orders, which is good, but it is framed in relation to existing law. It talks about “serious injury” and “injury”, and in so doing, it puts the burden of proof on the victim. The Cooper report has tried to move away from doing that. Dare I say, it is, sadly, a bit like rape, where it is up to the woman to prove that she has been raped. The burden of proof on the victim puts the victim through hell, and we need to find ways of moving away from that. We recommend sentencing uplifts for criminal offences that already exist and introducing a new criminal offence of conversion practices, which would deal with that issue.
There is a lot that is good in the Victoria legislation, but there are areas for improvement.
Today, we have heard that conversion therapy happens in the home, the community and religious settings. I want to ask about the enforcement agencies and complaints system around the ban, should it be implemented. Given what you know about other countries that have worked on such measures, who should be responsible for enforcement? Should we outsource that to a public body, such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission, or should the third sector be involved as well?
11:15
That is an excellent question, and I am embarrassed to say that I have not given that issue as much thought as I perhaps should have done. Australia has created a commission, and that model is worth serious contemplation. Can I come back to you on that? I have gone blank, but I know that we have looked at that. I agree that the Equality and Human Rights Commission is the right body, but, because a ban spans issues to do with children right through to social issues, we might need a new model, as I cannot think of a body that would cover all aspects.
One of the problems is that a lot of people are sent abroad for conversion therapy. We have not touched on that today, but we need to look at stopping the export of the problem and at banning advertising and promotion, as I should have mentioned earlier. There are all sorts of things. The breadth of the ban would require a specialised commission and I cannot see that there is a body that could cover that in depth. If I may, I will come back to the committee with a written answer.
Thank you. I come from a background of regulatory services and trading standards, so I thought that it would be good to ask a question about how we would enforce any provisions.
It is a good question.
We are slightly over time, but I will let Maggie Chapman come in.
To follow that up, can we ask the Scottish Human Rights Commission that question directly as part of the additional evidence that we gather? If we have Scottish legislation, would the relevant body be the EHRC or the SHRC? We need both their views on that. I know that they have already spoken to us about the ban but enforcement is an important issue.
Okay. As I said, we are slightly over time, and as no one else has a burning question to ask, I thank all the witnesses for taking the time to come along. Their evidence has been really powerful, as has all the evidence that we have taken.
I think it useful to highlight that, last week, in a safe space, the committee took evidence in private from survivors of conversion therapy. Therefore, as well as hearing from the witnesses today, we have heard from a range of people who have direct experience of conversion practices.
11:17 Meeting suspended.Previous
Subordinate Legislation