Seòmar agus comataidhean

I, too, thank the witnesses for their comments so far. As I said to the miners from whom we heard earlier this morning, my perception, as a youngster in those days, was that the miners strike was a bitter and divisive dispute.

Tom Wood said that police officers, given their role, had no choice but to do what they did to support the community and that the intention was to manage peaceful picketing—that came across. However, the miners who gave evidence to us said that they thought that there was a change in the policing attitude when the approach went from being local in flavour to being more national. They thought that there was a change in mindset, as well as in policy and procedure, when that happened.

Did Tom Wood and Jim McBrierty see any of that or interpret what happened in that way? The miners said that policing started off reasonably when the strikers knew the officers who were working with them daily, weekly and monthly, but that that accord seemed to change when police officers from other areas came in, when there was more aggression and confrontation. Can you give us your views on that?

You identify the length of time of the strike. It went through different phases. As someone who only watched the event, I certainly saw different phases of it through the media and on television.

We all understand that the pardon is intended to remove stigma. That is the crux of where the bill is trying to go, but by pardoning what was seen as criminal conduct, is it not rewriting history? It would be good to get your take on that.

Thank you for being so frank and for imparting your knowledge and wisdom on where the bill could go if the committee and the Parliament do not consider all the aspects. As I say, on the surface, it comes across as what we would expect but, when we dig deeper, we find further elements and layers that need to be looked at to ensure that we get the parity that is required.

Good morning, gentlemen. Thank you very much for your opening statements. I am a Conservative member for Mid Scotland and Fife and I stood in elections in 2016 and 2021 in the constituency of Clackmannanshire and Dunblane, and I know that the area that I have represented and supported over the past years still has the scars of the miners strike and those scars run deep. I have been well aware of that over my tenure as a member of the Scottish Parliament.

Today, I would like to tease out some aspects of the strike. I remember the strike; I remember the reports and the media coverage. My perception is that it was one of the most bitter and divisive industrial disputes that I can remember happening in my lifetime. It would be good to get your views on that. The strike went on for a considerable length of time, and newspapers and other media published photographs and produced films that showed real aggression and tension in the situation.

When we look at that coverage, we think about the policing of the strike. The policing element was very strong and there is no doubt that there was tension and even aggression that seemed to come through—that is the perception that I had from viewing what came on to the screens. It would be good to understand where and how those tensions erupted. I think that there were about 1,350 arrests and 470 court cases. As Professor Phillips indicated, there were about 800 convictions, and about 85 per cent of cases led to convictions.

This may be a question for Nicky Wilson initially. Was the tension and aggression that I described really what it was like on the ground? You said that things were quite low key at the beginning of the strike but then that changed. When it did, was that what it was like on the ground in some of the mining communities?

Professor Phillips, some views and opinions have been expressed, and you have done quite a lot of research on the way in which people were treated when they were arrested and on the convictions that they received. Some people say that pardoning will give the impression that a bit of rewriting of history is taking place. There was a situation or circumstance, there was a judicial process and what was received was based on that criminal offence and conduct. Do you think that the judiciary was heavy-handed? It is obvious from what the miners have said this morning that they believe that there was collusion between the judiciary, the coal board and maybe others, such as the police, in how this was managed. It would be good to get your view on that, Professor Phillips, because you are an academic who has looked at some of that.

Thank you. Margaret Lance, will you identify what you are trying to do in your sector for the women who have been left on their own?

With regard to the impact of the pandemic on physical health, there is an indication that long Covid seems to be affecting more women than men. It would be good to get some views on what effects that has on women’s participation in the labour market. Some, or most, women who work part time may find that their employer’s response when they are having to cope with long Covid is inadequate, and women are more likely to be in jobs that may not entitle them to statutory sick pay and so on.

I ask Susie Fitton to give us an idea of how that issue is having an impact, and how it might progress.

I thank the witnesses for their comprehensive introductions and updates. I want to look at isolation and loneliness. Catriona Melville represents Age Scotland and is well aware of the inequalities that the elderly have faced and continue to face. They have also experienced anxiety, a loss of self-esteem and a lack of access to healthcare. All that contributed to a tsunami effect for older people during lockdown. Many were left to their own devices, and many, because of their age and the responsibility that they felt for others’ lives, chose not to seek help initially but eventually had to because of their circumstances. It would be good to get a flavour of that from Age Scotland.

I would then like Margaret Lance to comment on how that impacted on the BEM community. Although the elderly population in that community had a way of managing themselves, the response was perhaps not co-ordinated appropriately by services and policy makers; it was much more informal. In your opening remarks, you said that you are doing work to manage all that and that the third sector took on a much bigger role in trying to manage those people.

From the two of you, I would like to hear what you think the ways forward are, because we are not finished with the pandemic and there may be lessons to be learned.

I thank the witnesses for their evidence so far. You have talked about the difficulties of being at home, and how that might not be the safest place due to multiple pressures. Financial instability was mentioned, as was the fact that more unpaid domestic work is being carried out. There is no doubt that, during the pandemic, there has once again been an increase in violence against women. The pandemic creates the perfect storm as people trapped in that environment are not able to access the support that they need.

What lessons can we learn, and what do they tell us about the support mechanisms that we need to put in place so that we do not abandon people to such circumstances? Agencies might need to be involved, but some of them were taking longer to get involved because, understandably, they had other priorities and commitment to deal with. However, that put individuals in a very precarious situation, which has continued throughout the pandemic. That in itself created even more difficulties, and there will be consequences as a result. It would be good to get your thoughts on that issue. Eilidh, perhaps you could start, given that you spoke about the issue earlier.

We need to find that out. Thank you.