Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you very much for that, Ruth. That is really helpful.

I put the million dollar question to Norin Arshed. What we do about the points that have been made? What are the key steps that the Parliament and Government need to take to ensure that the financial precarity is not exacerbated as we move forward?

Good morning. I thank the witnesses for being with us and for their opening remarks.

I am interested in understanding a bit about the difference across different age groups of women. The witnesses all alluded to the pandemic’s amplification of existing inequalities. We know that the pandemic was particularly acutely felt by younger women—those in the 18 to 30 age group—who experience financial precarity anyway. Will you give us a bit more detail on that and how it compares to the effect on older women? Are there areas that we should consider looking at for women who are much older but still working age? How does the impact change across women’s lives?

Dr Lee, you have not specifically spoken about this, but do you want to add anything?

Good morning, and thank you for coming in. Ewan MacDonald-Russell and Colin Smith have both spoken about the shortages of, and issues with, HGV drivers. I want to explore that and, in light of what Jamie Halcro Johnston said, to ask about what lessons we can learn and what we can do in the future. What impact have the policy announcements had on the various changes to how HGV drivers can function—such as those on the emergency visa scheme and changes to HGV testing capacity—had on the shortage of drivers? How is that situation different from the example of the poultry worker that Ewan gave earlier? Also, what is the impact on you and your members of the increased labour costs and increased salaries that the drivers have been getting? What can we learn and what do you need for the future?

Thank you.

I like your optimism, Ruth.

I will pick up on what might be quite a broad issue in relation to our systems and processes. You mentioned that judges are well used to determining whether certain courses of action should be taken or alternatives should be found. I have an anecdotal point. I have spoken to somebody who supports survivors of domestic abuse. With the Covid emergency legislation, domestic abuse trials have been virtual by default, but I understand that only about 10 have actually been virtual, because the defence usually objects. In whose interests are such balances weighed?

That is a very small point in relation to the much broader questions of whether our justice system gets gender, racial and other diversity issues in a meaningful way and how we can not plug those into the system but be mindful of them. How can we work with the equalities unit and other organisations to make sure that we are not entrenching inequality?

Both pre-pandemic and during the pandemic, there have been certain entrenched impacts that might have disproportionately affected women, people of colour and some of the more marginalised people, whether they are victims, complainers or defendants. I am interested in how we navigate that space. I do not think that our justice system gets gender at the moment, for instance. We have an opportunity at least to try to address that.

I will pick up on the points that Karen Adam and Karen Wylie made on the way in which we think about location. I am mindful of what Richard Susskind said about innovation and the need to think beyond what we have, rather than just replacing what we have with a digital or online system. I am also mindful of what Ruth Crawford said about the second principle: the constitutional right of access to the courts.

The system that we have now—or had pre-pandemic—is not the product of any strategic decision making based on evidence, as Richard Susskind outlined. We are thinking about what we have learned over the past 18 months about the use of digital, online and telephone services—alternative mechanisms of being in contact—and we also need to think about where something happens. We have the physical place of the courts and of people’s homes or, if they are supported by organisations to allow people to give evidence, safe places. However, can we learn something from the codified bairns hoose or barnahus principle, in relation to child witnesses or young people who have been the victims of crime, that still allows for the clear principle that Ruth Crawford spoke about but which takes away some of the tensions and conflicts that are inevitable in a court setting, whether online or in a physical court room?

I ask Robert Windsor the same question.

Thank you. I will leave it there.

Hello to the panel. Thank you for putting up with the glitches that we have had this morning.

I wish to explore how ready we are and what we need to do to meet our ambitious net zero targets and other climate change ambitions. In particular, I am interested in how we take advantage of the innovations and new technologies that we will have to adopt, as we change what we do and how we function economically and socially.

We heard from Maggie Simpson about some of the infrastructure requirements in rail. There has also been discussion of the modal shifts that are possible. Regarding infrastructure or other elements of development, investment and change, what do we need—or what do you need—to ensure that we can take advantage of the innovations and new technologies that we will have to rely on in the future?

I ask Bryan Hepburn to respond first.