³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I agree. We need to get that clarity, so that we understand the implications. We already had some of that from the Scottish Government, in what it is suggesting. The petitioner and his organisation also need to think about the way forward and how what they are calling for could be used. I would support trying to see whether that could be achieved.

I concur with Ruth Maguire’s comments; there is no doubt that there is an impact on mental health. In situations in which there is domestic abuse, it is important that that is recognised.

Only yesterday, the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee held a round-table event on a very similar topic involving access to support for families and young people. It would be useful for us to take on board and think about what came out of that evidence session. I would be very keen to continue the petition in order to see what more information we can glean on the issue, and we can analyse that at a later stage.

You have identified many of the issues. The requirement has been controversial for some time. There was a delay initially when the Government set out on the process, and there was a lot of anxiety before the requirement came into force. However, I think that we now understand where we are with the process. A fund has been set up and the communication has improved. There is now a route for individuals who may be vulnerable.

The petition calls for an exemption for small houses, but the Government has made it clear that it does not intend to introduce that and that it is not going to happen. Because of that, and given what has happened with the policies and practices that have been put in place, I am not clear that we can take the petition any further. I suggest that we close it under rule 15.7 of standing orders because I do not think that anything else can be achieved, given the timescale.

It has been fascinating to hear the history that you have given us and to gain an understanding of the culture in Scotland at the time and the power of the state and the church to make things happen. You have given us some examples of what is being done in other parts of the world and how people there have managed to do those things.

How are you able to support what you are trying to achieve, when it has been so long—centuries—since the events took place? It is very difficult for us because, in many respects, we live in a different world today. You have explained our culture, heritage and myths, as well as the knowledge and understanding that people in Scotland had in those days, which is not anywhere near what we have today. How do you square that circle? What have you considered and discounted, and why, in trying to secure pardons for things that were done so long ago?

The petition has some merit. There is no doubt that caffeine has had and continues to have an effect on young people. The petitioner has identified some of the concerns. It would be useful for us to keep the petition open and seek some more advice and information from stakeholders, who could include the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, scottishathletics, sportscotland, Cardiac Risk in the Young and Food Standards Scotland. All of those organisations would be more than willing to support us and give us some information on the difficulties that caffeine intake causes. That would give us a much more balanced approach to where we can take the petition in the future. If we keep the petition open and ask for that information to be submitted, we can make a judgment and a response on the basis of that.

I thank the witnesses for their comments, which have been enlightening. They talked about access issues, insensitivity issues and the backlog that we have experienced because of the pandemic. It would be good to get views about the family justice modernisation strategy that has been put in place. Does it go far enough in trying to tackle some of the issues that we identified? That is the next step in making some progress. If there are still gaps, and fears that the strategy will not achieve what the witnesses expect it to achieve, there needs to be follow-up scrutiny and governance around how that process will advance.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. There is no doubt that there is stigma attached to the situation. As I have said in previous committee meetings, I do not remember a more bitter and divisive industrial dispute in my lifetime. As a youngster, I watched, as many did, the situation unfold in the media and on the television. Communities were really badly affected.

The idea of the pardon is being processed, but the work in communities now is just as important in allowing them to rebuild. It would be good to get a flavour of what support you think should be given to communities to achieve reconciliation, because there is a desire for truth and reconciliation. The pardon itself goes some way to address that, but it does not address what happens in the communities that were affected. What are your thoughts on that? As I have said in the past couple of evidence sessions, the pardon is perceived by some people as the rewriting of a bit of history. The events happened more than three decades ago, but the communities are still in turmoil today.

Perhaps because the pardon is, as you say, tangible, it will heal some of the individuals and families and what they believe. However, at the end of the day, it is more important that we try to rebuild and reorganise the community. The support mechanisms that are in place to help that to happen are vital. The bill should incorporate some of that to ensure that we consider not only something that happened 34-odd years ago but what happens today. The communities still have to manage the crisis today. Is there any scope to think about how that might be progressed through the bill, or are there other ways of doing it in the future?

This is very important. In the past, the committee and Parliament have discussed the whole idea of violence and the creation of the situation. It gives us a chance to clarify the evidence and get more from organisations and individuals who are at the coalface. It is vitally important that we continue to understand the situations and circumstances in which many people find themselves. It is alarming because the incidence of such violence seems to be growing and that in itself is a problem. To have organisations such as Victim Support Scotland and Scottish Women’s Aid before the committee would at least give us an opportunity. It would also be useful to find out from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service about what it wants. Having some correspondence with it or inviting it to give us some insight would be very useful.

I am amazed at what has already been achieved through the campaigns in the past, but looking at the current situation, it would appear that lessons have not been learned. There is a real similarity between what happened to the women and what is now happening to the men. The Shouldice hospital report is eye-opening; it is important for us to have that information and to collate some of the issues that have been raised.

We need to seek more clarity on all of it. We should at least be writing to the chief medical officer in Scotland to ask what is happening with the process. Ms Baillie has some very strong views about what is taking place and the funding that has been provided. If we do not take some action, are we just saving up more problems for individuals in the future? I want us to write to the chief medical officer and also to ensure that the minister for public health comes back to the committee and gives us more updates on what is taking place.

I would have hoped that, following the whole debate and debacle with transvaginal mesh, we would have learned some lessons, but it would appear that we are repeating some of the failures and we are putting individuals through the trauma that some women experienced in the past. We need to get real clarity on all of that and we should continue the petition on those grounds.