³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Happy new year, everybody. I thank all the witnesses for coming along today to give evidence. Like most of the members who have spoken, I was very young when the miners strikes were happening. However, I remember the horrific scenes on television. As I was very young, I did not understand what was happening, so I welcome the insights and lived experiences that we have heard today from the people it happened to.

My question is about the lasting impact on miners and mining communities. Given that the impact on strikes continues more than three decades later, what are your views on the lasting impact of the strike and its policing on miners and mining communities? My question is for Professor Phillips about the research and then for Nicky Wilson.

Thank you.

Good morning and thank you very much for coming. It was useful to hear the opening statements on how women have suffered over the pandemic. The issue is at the heart of the committee’s remit, which is why we decided to work on it.

The evidence shows that women, disabled women, BME people and lone parents have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic. Should those groups have received, or should they receive, focused support to ensure that they have full access to employment as we embark on our socio-economic recovery from the pandemic? If so, what kind of policies should the Parliament consider?

Thank you. I have a question for Norin Arshed. You talked about your survey from October 2020 to March 2021 and the three challenges of access to finance, networking and cultural barriers. That survey was a snapshot, but had you done anything before that to be able to say whether the situation has got worse through Covid? Were the inequalities that Eilidh Dickson mentioned already there, or have they just come out? What is the comparison?

My next question is for both Norin Arshed and Ruth Boyle. If the challenges were there before the pandemic and have now come out even more, what policies or practices should the Government put in place? What is the way forward?

It has been very helpful to hear about the advantages and disadvantages of going digital, but my question is more about the individual. Are individuals allowed to disagree to a default remote hearing? They might have many reasons for disagreeing. They might not understand what is happening, or they might need a translator. People might not have access to the technology, as Alexander Stewart and Iain Nicol said, or they could have any issue that impedes their ability and makes them feel uncomfortable about being heard remotely. What are the individual’s rights?

I share Richard Susskind’s enthusiasm about technology evolving, and agree that, from now on, the technology that we have today is the worst that it will ever be. Today, we have talked about technology and the advantages and disadvantages of going remote. What about access? We know that when we take part in Zoom meetings, access can be an issue—for example, due to a lost wi-fi connection. In such cases, where would the onus lie? If somebody did not turn up to court, there would be penalties and they could be found to have wasted court time, although there might be a valid reason for their not turning up. What would happen if someone could not connect? What test would be applied in such cases?

My question is for Kay McCorquodale, with regard to the five-year digital strategy, as well as for Richard, given his enthusiasm when he talked about technology evolving.

Good morning. Today, we have heard from the opposite side. Previously, we heard from survivors and organisations that are for a ban on conversion therapy. It is very useful to hear from your side about how a ban could end up infringing on religious practices and parental rights. My question is about that issue.

We have listened to a lot of survivors, including people who went through conversion therapy when they were younger and some who did so much later on. Those who were younger when they went through it did not know that it was conversion therapy until much later, when they understood that such practices were happening. How do you see that being policed, if you are looking for a ban not to be put in place? I ask Anthony Horan to respond first.

Piers, you talked about younger children and parental rights. How do you see that playing out, especially when a lot of younger children will not know what has happened to them until much later on, because they believe their parents? How do you see them speaking out and that being policed?

Good afternoon—I was about to say good morning. I thank the witnesses for their opening statements. My question is for Dr Ryan. One aspect of the legislative ban on conversion therapy that has been raised with the committee by religious organisations is that, although they support a ban on forced and abusive conversion practices, any ban should not extend to someone who seeks voluntary pastoral support. How might a ban on conversion practices impact on the support that is provided by such religious practices?