Chamber and committees

I am impressed by the body of evidence that the committee has gathered already. We hear a consistent refrain from stakeholders that the change would not necessarily impinge on reserved benefits and that there is a mechanism that can achieve the reform that the petitioner is advocating for.

Having corresponded with some of the stakeholders, I think that although they welcome that the review will take place, there is still concern about its pace. There is also a question about what role this committee should take in the review. Should the committee continue to seek evidence? Should the review refer to that evidence? Should the committee itself make a submission to the review, based on the evidence that we have gathered?

I suppose that the question is not whether the review will take place—it will, and that is a welcome development—but whether the committee has a role or locus in it, whether we should make a submission and whether we are required to keep the petition open in order to do so. That is what we need to consider.

Thank you very much for that. The esplanade of Edinburgh castle has been mentioned. What are your reflections on that? That might be an obvious location, I suppose.

It might be worth considering engaging with Historic Environment Scotland, which manages a lot of historic properties across the country, many of which might, historically, have had some involvement in the practice of witch hunts, and it might be able to find an appropriate location. Therefore, it might be worth engaging in that discussion now to develop the idea.

I have been involved in a couple of memorial campaigns, including the Remember Mary Barbour campaign in Glasgow to raise a statue to Mary Barbour and the rent strikers in Govan. That was community led—there was a lot of persistent fundraising and a design competition, but they had to be very much driven by the campaign. Similarly, there is the recent an gorta mór memorial in the east end of Glasgow to the Irish famine victims. Again, that involved a persistent, community-led campaign. Often, such initiatives can help to drive projects, so it might be worth looking at those examples in order to help to drive things forward.

Thank you for your impressive testimonies.

With regard to the proposal for a national monument, which I find really interesting, are there any international examples that we can look at? You mentioned a community memorial in the north of Scotland, but are there any well-done international examples of national memorials to the victims of this superstitious practice?

Would you prefer a verbal apology in the parliamentary chamber rather than something written, or would you rather have both?

I am happy to follow this up in writing once I have reflected on it, and I am sure that the petitioner, too, will have some ideas.

You have talked about the symbolism of international women’s day. Is there a specific figure in the Government whom you would wish to issue the apology, or would it be satisfactory for the Government in general to do so?

I note the submission from the petitioner and the personal experience that she has had. I also note that she has engaged with ministers and parliamentarians on the issue. If she has not been satisfied with that, there is a valid basis for inviting further submissions. Perhaps we could write to the relevant charities that deal with diabetes and the Scottish diabetes group, which is the national advisory group, to ask whether they are satisfied with the measures that the Scottish Government has taken and establish whether there is a wider impetus for improvement.

The Scottish Government has indicated that it has relevant strategies in place for women’s health and diabetic health. We can ask whether those have been peer reviewed and whether there are further concerns. It is worth establishing whether that is the case.

I am familiar with this interesting campaign, because @ReplacetheM8 hosted an exhibition at the New Glasgow Society during the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26. It seems to have been motivated by the recent developments concerning the structural condition of the Woodside viaducts in the centre of Glasgow, which could lead to hundreds of millions of pounds being spent on rebuilding that infrastructure, which was completed in 1971. That led to a discussion, during COP26, about what other cities around the world have done and about best practice. There was the big dig in Boston, and there are other examples in cities such as San Francisco, Paris, and Seoul in South Korea. There is also the international campaign for new urbanism, which advocates for the impact of elevated, segregated, high-speed motorways through city centres to be reduced.

That approach does not seem to have been much of a feature in Transport Scotland’s considerations so far, as it itself has identified. It has never fundamentally reappraised the merits of having an elevated concrete motorway through the centre of the biggest city in Scotland or considered whether a sanity check, such as the one provided by the campaign, is needed.

Large numbers of the population of Glasgow were displaced to construct the road. The communities of Cowcaddens, Townhead and Anderston were cleared. Glasgow is the only city in the western world, apart from Detroit, that previously had a million people in it but whose population declined below a million—it lost a third of its population in the space of 30 years, from the 1960s to the 1990s.

The urban blight that was caused by the motorway, along with adjacent redevelopment, continues to have a negative effect on the city’s urban environment. There are high correlations with poverty, ill health and other issues that are associated with the road. Recently, a study was carried out that identified that the noise pollution at Charing Cross in the centre of Glasgow is equivalent to standing on the runway at Glasgow airport. That has been discovered only recently.

The negative environmental effects of the road need to be invested thoroughly. The petitioner has identified that as a major public policy need. The issue is one that seems to fall between the cracks. Glasgow City Council is responsible for the general urban condition of Glasgow and the normal road network, whereas Transport Scotland and its contractor, Amey, are responsible for the maintenance of the trunk road network. There is a bit of a disconnect between the national responsibility for trunk roads and local considerations to do with the urban environment. There is a need for the two to be married and for a co-ordinated study to be undertaken.

I fully support the petition’s intent, and I think that it would be worth while gathering further submissions from relevant stakeholders and attempting to understand whether there is scope to carry out a more thorough investigation of the merits of doing something. The petition is not necessarily about removing the motorway; it is not hard and fast about that. Some people might advocate for that, while others might be alarmed by the prospect, which is quite reasonable, given the potential implications. There are certainly practical measures that can be taken to reduce the environmental effect of the road, such as the capping project at Charing Cross. It would be good to investigate a spectrum of options that could be pursued to solve some of the problems that the petitioner has identified.

What do you hope to achieve by having a national memorial? Where would that be sited? How might the works be commissioned? Would there be a competition, or are you planning to undertake some other sort of activity?