Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

Good morning. The proposed cross-party group on India seeks to promote relationships between Scotland and India. The principal aim of our CPG is to work with organisations and authorities to strengthen cultural, educational and economic ties between our two countries. Given the size of the Indian economy, forging a closer relationship with India has the potential to be extremely beneficial for our society, economy and development. It would be the first CPG focused on India in the history of the Scottish Parliament. Indians and people of Indian heritage who live in Scotland have contributed greatly to our communities, society and culture. Therefore, the CPG on India would provide a great opportunity to promote our common interests and shared heritage; it would also provide the perfect opportunity for MSPs to meet prominent dignitaries from the Indian community.

I do not expect that the CPG on India would infringe on other groups. I believe that the group would bring great economic and social benefits to Scotland and India, so I hope that the committee agrees to its registration.

I echo what was said earlier about workload. I have taken into account that there are many CPGs and that MSPs have a high workload, but I have also taken into account how important the work of the proposed group is to building our economy after the pandemic. I have cross-party support for the group.

Thank you for your opening statement. How do you see the Scottish Government turning the proposed bill around with full support and engagement from all the necessary organisations? What organisations do you think that the Scottish Government should be working with to ensure smooth delivery?

Today, we have heard that conversion therapy happens in the home, the community and religious settings. I want to ask about the enforcement agencies and complaints system around the ban, should it be implemented. Given what you know about other countries that have worked on such measures, who should be responsible for enforcement? Should we outsource that to a public body, such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission, or should the third sector be involved as well?