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.

It is a great privilege to speak in my colleague Stephen Kerr’s members’ business debate in commemoration of the 70th anniversary of the accession to the throne of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

Sadly, the anniversary also marks 70 years since the death of Her Majesty’s father, King George VI. That event was the catalyst for his daughter’s accession to the throne, which was bestowed upon her when she was only 25. There were numerous duties that she needed to undertake and it was an enormous responsibility for someone so young. Almost overnight, the young Princess Elizabeth became Queen and head of state of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Crown dependencies and overseas territories and the head of the Commonwealth. As an aside, it is interesting to note that Queen Elizabeth I was also 25 when she became Queen in 1558.

Princess Elizabeth, as the King’s eldest daughter, was next in line to the throne. She was in Kenya at the time of her father’s death and swiftly returned home. Before leaving Kenya, she penned many letters of apology to potential hosts for having to cancel her long-awaited visit, which had actually been meant to have been father’s visit. She also became the first sovereign in more than 200 years to accede to the throne while abroad.

Following her coronation, on 2 June 1953 at Westminster abbey, which has been the setting for all coronations since 1066, Her Majesty became the 39th sovereign to be crowned and swiftly took up the mantle. She has taken her journey as Queen with great dignity. In a broadcast during her 21st birthday, on 21 April 1947, while on a tour of South Africa with her parents and younger sister Margaret, she promised:

“I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong.”

Service defines the Queen. More than three quarters of a century ago, at the age of 18, she joined the Auxiliary Territorial Service. She did that because she wanted to be part of the services. She took no rank other than second subaltern because her father wanted her to have an opportunity to serve. At that time and since, Her Majesty’s resolve, determination and immeasurable loyalty to our country have shone through.

Celebrations to mark her 70th anniversary as monarch of the realm will take place during the year. The first will be a four-day bank holiday from 2 to 5 June. The jubilee bank holiday will provide an opportunity for individuals the length and breadth of the country to celebrate. In addition, there will be the Queen’s green canopy, a unique tree-planting initiative created to invite people from across the United Kingdom to plant trees for the jubilee. The platinum pudding competition has already been mentioned. It will be chaired by celebrity chef Mary Berry. There will also be the big jubilee lunch, which will encourage communities the length and breadth of the country to get together and get to know each other a little bit better. Many other events will take place throughout the country. I am sure that we will all participate in our own constituencies and regions.

I very much welcome the Queen’s words during her platinum jubilee message last Saturday, 5 February. She said that she would mark the anniversary and that it gave her great pleasure to renew the pledge that she gave to our country in 1947 that her entire life would always be devoted to our service. Echoing her, I hope that, especially during this time of division, the jubilee will bring families, friends, neighbours and communities closer together, all as one.

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?

A recent report identified that thousands of women in Scotland could be at risk of gambling harm. That has been exacerbated during the pandemic. Gambling can have a serious detrimental effect on families, and on individuals psychologically and physically. What can the Scottish Government do to support those women and end the stigma attached to gambling, which can prevent them from seeking the urgent support that they require?

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.

I concur with that, convener. There is a demand and capacity issue, and possibly a lack of qualified teachers and funding. All of those would need to be in place before we can see whether there is an opportunity. Mr Sweeney makes a very good point about taking collective responsibility to provide it within a centre, a school or further education. That is part of the issue, but at the same time, if there is not the demand and there is not the resource, it is difficult to understand what the situation is. Clarifying that would be useful.