Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

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.

Thank you for allowing three questions, convener.

Would that be okay?

I am a bit concerned about the timescale that has been outlined. Is there anything that you can do to look at an alternative mechanism to make, for example, a Covid recovery payment to carers before 2025? There are a number of people who are ineligible for the carers allowance supplement and will not be able to get any support in that time.

I appreciate that some of the argument against the alternative approaches relates to time, but 77 per cent of the people we are talking about have said that they have not had a break this year, so they know about time and they know how they are spending it. It is important for us as a Parliament and a committee, and for the Government, to do something to put money in those people’s pockets before 2025, which is a long way away to consider people’s eligibility.

Yes—I have just one more. I thank the witnesses for their answers to my previous question. I really appreciated them.

How many of the people with whom you work and who get the carers allowance supplement are living in poverty? Are all the carers identified as living in poverty in Scotland getting carers allowance, or are there others?

Welcome to your role, minister. You will have heard this morning and seen in the submissions that what is being provided is too little, too late, and that the supplement will get swallowed up as people pay the bills, especially given the time of year at which it will be paid. We understand that the payment is important, but a lot of it will be swallowed up in paying off debt or paying the bills.

What is your analysis of the adequacy of the supplement? Will you consider increasing it?

Thank you. I understand that there is an increase and that the supplement applies to that. However, as a measure of whether it will get to the carers who are providing the most care and the highest number of hours or the people who live in most poverty, the eligibility for carers allowance does not capture all those people. For example, it is set at a rate that is, basically, 15 hours at the minimum wage, which is quite a low rate. People who are on 15 hours on the minimum wage are also likely to be living in poverty, so it does not capture all those people. A number of people are missing out with regard to caring hours because, for example, of the overlapping benefit rule or the full-time study rule. Those people are still providing more than 35 hours a week of care but they are not able to access carers allowance or the supplement for those reasons. Therefore, the measure does not address any of those concerns about poverty or the intense number of hours that those people are putting in.