Chamber and committees

I agree. We need to continue to seek advice and find out people’s views. Those organisations have a strong commitment to the issue and have already given some strong views, but it is vital that we get the views of stakeholders and those who have to progress through the system. Continuing the petition and taking further evidence will enhance our opportunity to try to find a solution.

You have all touched on areas of anxiety, fear and risk, and we have now moved to talking about danger. To try to manage some of that, you require clarity of research, evidence and definition. Do you believe that more research evidence is required to manage those anxieties, fears and risks? If so, what type of evidence should be looked at or examined? The language that we have heard today is potentially inflammatory in some ways, because some people do not see the proposal as a danger or as creating anxiety or a risk; they see it as a right. I ask each one of you to tell me what further evidence you would like that would be used to support your approach. Maybe Piers Shepherd can go first.

Dr Ryan, you spoke about the challenges and the difficulties, and those come together with the safeguards that you have talked about. However, there is some anxiety about religious organisations that deal with their own governance. They self-police, so, in carrying out scrutiny on themselves, they could find loopholes in the legislation that they might manipulate to cover up or hide what they are doing. We heard evidence of that from survivors who felt that they were manipulated, because they were told that they were going to an event of some nature that turned out to be completely different from what was described. It would be useful to hear your views on how we can manage that safeguarding and the fears that those survivors expressed.

Sure, convener.

I agree. There is no doubt that individuals in the sector have suffered, and I am sure that other members will, like me, have received correspondence from many who feel that they fell into the gaps that opened up with the moves to ensure that others in the sector were being supported. The self-employed really had problems, and the petitioner has indicated at length the difficulties that they face.

I certainly want the petition to be progressed in some way and suggest that we take views from the Scottish Government and, indeed, the UK Government on how things are being managed. As I have said, the people in question certainly suffered, and we need to learn lessons that can be applied to the industry. Without the opportunity to be involved in the travel sector, they fell between a rock and a hard place, and it is important that we support them now.

I agree with Jackie Baillie that to get submissions from organisations on the impact would be useful. The Scottish Government has the opportunity to review but those organisations had to live through what took place and it is important to get their views and opinions, because that will give us a steer from the organisations and individuals that were most impacted.

It is vital that we have the opportunity to take evidence on the petition. The initiatives and the training that are in place work, but maybe we will find in taking evidence that there are still some loopholes. Taking evidence would guide us on how we might banish those. I am very supportive of the committee’s taking evidence on the petition and of my colleague Edward Mountain.

I also commend and congratulate Callum on his endeavours. He is someone of a young age who has such a passion, and he has not only created a huge opportunity for his own school, but extended that. We on this committee are very much obliged to have him here to explain his views and to give him a platform to talk about his passion.

The petition raises a very live issue in relation to COP26. The idea of trying to encourage young people at primary school to be involved in eco-committees has been a real success. I think that Callum will be a real pioneer for the future. I look forward to hearing from him when he has the opportunity to come here.

I concur with Mr Sweeney’s comments. There has been an increase in antisocial behaviour involving vandalism and graffiti in a number of locations across Scotland. It would be good to seek more information. It would be useful to contact the Commonwealth War Graves Commission to ask about its policies and procedures, because it continues to look after and maintain many war memorials across our towns, cities and villages. It is vital that we acknowledge that such memorials are a lasting memory and should be protected. They are protected, but it would be useful to find out further information.

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.