Chamber and committees

I begin by restating what others have said: every drug-related death is a tragedy, and my sincere condolences go to all those who have been affected by such a death. The drug deaths crisis is a public health crisis, but it is not inevitable. We are at last seeing a shift in political positioning, from most in the chamber at any rate, about how we tackle the issue—it is high time.

As I have said before, we need a culture of care not a war on drugs, because the war on drugs has been an abject failure in restricting the use of drugs and in protecting individuals and communities from their harm. Criminalising users and petty suppliers rather than seeking solutions to the deeper problems that underpin substance use has not worked.

We need to understand and tackle the underlying causes of people using drugs and developing addictions if we are to deal effectively with a crisis that is not inevitable. That means having holistic interventions that do not treat the substance use or dependency in isolation but consider all the person’s experiences and challenges, including their economic conditions, housing situation, family relationships and much more.

Drug dependency is like the canary in the mine for trauma, poverty and other social ills. It is a long-term and complex issue and can be fully tackled only when recovery happens at every level of a person’s life. Addressing substance abuse issues in that context can bring significant co-benefits in terms of better stability, health and so on, and it means, as the cabinet secretary outlined, rethinking our approach across the justice system.

Prison is not a good place to be; I get that that is the point, but when it comes to dealing with substance dependency issues, prison might be the worst place for someone to be. There are high levels of drug use among people arriving at prison, while they are incarcerated and on leaving prison, including many whose substance use begins for the first time in prison. Drug deaths are especially high while people are incarcerated and after they are released.

People in prison need support that meets their individual needs and focuses on their challenges in a trauma-informed and person-centred way.

We must consider issues to do with demand. Isolation, long periods of being locked in a cell and a lack of appropriate activity all make it more likely that people in prison will turn to substance use. Rigid drug testing in prisons might dissuade people from seeking help or encourage them to use less detectable and perhaps more dangerous substances.

Levels of reoffending are directly related to the level of post-release support that is available, so co-ordination between and across agencies is vital, including links to appropriate community support.

There is significant evidence that interventions in prison tend to be less effective than those in the community. They are definitely more costly. That is one of the reasons why community justice and other alternatives to prison are so important in our collective, cross-departmental efforts to tackle drug deaths and substance addiction, as well as the causes of criminal behaviour.

Addressing people’s substance abuse problems requires work at community as well as individual level, using a wide range of policies and systems. We need to ensure that approaches take account of people’s age, gender, race and so on. Strict treatment orders might not work for some people, especially young people. Residential treatment might not be suitable for people who have caring responsibilities or concerns about losing their tenancy.

We must ensure that appropriate resources are available in the community sector, as well as in our police and prison services. We must acknowledge the connections between all Government departments and the importance of a whole-Government approach. Only then can we tackle what is a public health issue with care and humanity.

NFU Scotland has called for a relaxation of greening rules so that land that has been set aside for nature recovery can be used for cereal production. As a country, we need to have a much more strategic approach to food security, including by ensuring that our productive land feeds as many people as possible, but that must not come at the cost of our long-term future and ecological wellbeing. Can the cabinet secretary confirm that greening schemes will not be discarded in that way?

Our food supply was already being disrupted before the conflict, because of Brexit. We had tailbacks of lorries and food literally rotting in fields because of the lack of seasonal workers. Even if farmers plant on greening land, who will be there to harvest the crops? It is clear that sustainable domestic food production must be the priority, which includes a shift from growing crops to feed livestock to growing crops to feed people.

How will the Scottish Government ensure that food producers are supported—especially smaller and sustainable local producers—to maximise food growing for people and ensure that we have a robust food supply system?

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking in light of reports of potential international food shortages and rising food prices. (S6T-00575)

I am pleased to close the debate on behalf of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. I thank Joe FitzPatrick and all my fellow committee members for their thoughtful work on the issue and for their speeches in the debate.

I am grateful to all the witnesses who gave evidence to the committee in person, virtually or in writing. In particular, I give special thanks to the victims and survivors who shared their experiences of conversion practices with us. Their stories were harrowing to hear and we recognise the courage that that took.

The committee can be rightfully proud of the inquiry that led to the report that the committee has published, the production of which clerks and others so expertly supported. It is significant that the committee unanimously agreed that conversion practices are abhorrent and not acceptable in Scotland, and that they should be banned. I am pleased that, from their speeches, colleagues around the chamber concur, and I thank Willie Rennie and other members for their kind words about the work of the committee.

There are a couple of issues that I want to highlight, especially given the correspondence that I and, I am sure, all other MSPs have received since the publication of the committee report. I am grateful to all the people who have written to us to express their thoughts and concerns about the impact of a conversion therapy ban, particularly on other rights such as those relating to religion and belief.

As a committee, we were conscious throughout the evidence-gathering process about the need to hear as wide a variety of perspectives as possible, including those of faith leaders, advocacy groups and national health service chaplains. A clear majority of religious organisations that we heard from are in favour of a ban on conversion practices.

We are of the view that legislation should not pose any restrictions on ordinary religious teaching or interfere in the right of people to take part in prayer or pastoral care to discuss, explore or come to terms with their identity in a non-judgmental and non-directive way. At the same time, it should be recognised that, in a significant number of cases, conversion therapy is conducted in religious settings and often through the medium of prayer. Paul O’Kane described being both horrified and terrified by that. I agree, and I thank him for his powerful contribution.

We do not want to ban prayer; we want to ban conversion practices in whatever form. A significant number of faith and rights experts agree with us on that, as do most faith leaders. The Global Interfaith Commission on LGBT+ Lives has had almost 2,000 signatories to its declaration, which called for an end to violence against LGBTQI+ people and a global ban on conversion therapy. Signatories include 14 archbishops, 78 bishops, 100 rabbis and various religious leaders from the Sikh, Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu religions.

Indeed, the UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Dr Ahmed Shaheed, says that

“banning such discredited, ineffective, and unsafe practices that misguidedly try to change or suppress people’s sexual orientation and gender is not a violation of the right to freedom of religion or belief under international law.”

We welcome that clarity that there is no conflict between freedom of religion or belief and the protection of the rights of LGBTQI+ people. I hope that that gives some comfort to Alasdair Allan and John Mason, and to any others who have potential concerns in that area.

I heard that very clearly. I just noted Dr Allan’s intervention on one of the earlier speeches.

We are reassured by what we have heard today, which is that Parliament will work with faith communities and organisations to ensure that, in protecting LGBTQI+ people from conversion practices, the legislation will not impinge on people’s right to practise their faith and beliefs.

I want to echo something that we heard repeatedly from survivors. Often, when someone goes through conversion practices, including through prayer, it is not their faith or belief that motivates them. We heard that people who go through, or who are pressured or advised to go through, conversion practices often do so because of external pressure. Even when someone volunteers for or “consents” to conversion practices, they are often in environments where they are coerced into doing so or it is expected of them.

Some of the most common responses to the question why someone would try to change their sexual orientation are that they believed that their desires were sinful; they were ashamed of their desires; their religious leader disapproved; their friends or family disapproved; and they believed that being anything other than straight was not acceptable in their culture.

We must protect Scotland’s LGBTQI+ people from conversion practices in all forms, wherever and however those practices take place. That may mean protecting them from the coercion, pressure or force of people around them—people who love them or who are in positions of power and who would try to change the unchangeable and tell them that they are wrong for being who they are. I thank Craig Hoy, Karen Adam and Emma Roddick for their passionate words and such clear articulations of that point. Psychological torture is not acceptable.

That is why it is so important that when legislating for a comprehensive ban we make it clear that consent to such practices can never be informed and should not be available as a defence in relation to conversion practices, as Pam Duncan-Glancy, Alexander Stewart and others have stated. We also need to ensure that the legislation that is introduced is appropriately enforced, as Pam Gosal and others noted.

I will pick up on another key issue. The committee is clear that legislation alone will not be enough to address conversion practices. We need non-legislative measures, too, to protect and support victims and survivors. Such measures should include, but not necessarily be limited to, education and awareness raising across different parts of society, mental health support services for people who have experienced conversion practices, a helpline and a whistleblowing mechanism. We should also consider a separate and distinct reporting mechanism for children.

The minister outlined the process that will be undertaken by the expert advisory group. I thank her for that and for the Scottish Government’s responses to the committee’s recommendations. However, I stress—as others have done—that we need to move swiftly now. We must act to bring forward a comprehensive ban via a process that does not retraumatise victims and survivors who have already told their stories, and which does not duplicate the work that the committee has already undertaken. I know that the committee is keen to work closely on that with the Scottish Government. Anything that we can do to shorten the timescale that the minister outlined would be most welcome.

I thank all colleagues for their contributions this afternoon and for their passion, conviction and commitment to getting a ban enforced.

I want to speak directly to all LGBTQI+ people by repeating Gillian Mackay’s powerful words. You are not broken. You are not sick. You are not wrong. You do not need to be fixed, cured or converted, because who you are is perfect. We will protect you from those who would try to change you.

Let us make good on those words and act.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what support is available, including through local authorities, to provide accommodation in communities for people displaced by conflict or climate change. (S6O-00834)

I have asked in the chamber before about what is becoming, by stealth, institutional accommodation for single men asylum seekers in hotels across Scotland. Many of those men have been in hotels without proper support or community for many months.

Today, I want to ask what we can learn from the failures of the Afghan evacuation scheme, which has seen resettled families end up in bridging hotels for many months. Recent figures suggest that 12,000 people are still stuck in limbo and have not yet moved into settled accommodation. Once again, the dysfunctional Home Office has let refugees down. We know that places of institutional accommodation, such as hotels, are not homes. They are not places where people can find safety and sanctuary and can start to rebuild their lives. As we look to create routes to safety for Ukrainian refugees, how do we ensure that that does not happen in future resettlement schemes, such as what we would want in place for people from Ukraine?

Pauline, could I bring you in to answer the question on the physical and mental consequences for disabled people and for the people around them?

I want to follow up on the topic that you both started to explore with Alexander Stewart—financial security—but from the point of view of education and training. Jenny Miller spoke about the poverty trap and people not having access to a range of employment options or having to curtail their paid work because of caring responsibilities. There is also the issue of people curtailing other opportunities, such as skills development, training and education opportunities. I ask Jenny Miller and then Pauline Nolan to say a little more about the impacts on access to education, skills and training that carers and disabled people experienced during the pandemic.