Chamber and committees

Thank you, convener, for giving me another one, because I know that I have asked a number already.

I want to put on record that I think that the £20 uplift to universal credit was necessary, because we had the lowest level of social security in decades. To take that away will leave families completely destitute: they will be unable to buy food and so on. Everyone has made the point about how serious that is and the decision must be reversed. I also think that not extending it to legacy benefits was discrimination. Chris Birt’s point about disabled people still going hungry is absolutely key, and the uplift should have been applied to those benefits.

I am getting quite frustrated with both Governments giving the answer that to start doing work on certain things would be logistically difficult or impossible because of IT systems—we hear that quite a bit. There is an urgent need to act to put money in people’s pockets now, given everything that we have heard. As a result of the universal credit cut, something like 4,000 children in Scotland might no longer qualify for the Scottish child payment. Can you think of any mechanism that we could use so that those 4,000 children retain their eligibility and can continue to access the Scottish child payment?

In the same vein, is there anything else that we can do with the social security powers in Scotland to improve the incomes of families across Scotland?

Thank you for allowing me to come back in, convener.

The answers were really helpful. I have two brief follow-up questions. First, would doubling the child payment as soon as possible—as in, now—and again next year have an impact on meeting the targets? Secondly, on the point about social housing, are we currently targeting such housing at the right families in Scotland?

Thank you for coming along. What is the panel’s assessment of trends in child poverty in Scotland, the likelihood that we will meet the targets, and whether you think there is any way other than by using social security to meet the targets?

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?

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?