Seòmar agus comataidhean

I note the concerns that have been raised by colleagues and I have some sympathies with the point about superfluous provisions that are highly unlikely to be used, which means that there are questions about whether it is essential include them in the SSI. That opens up a wider discussion about quality assurance in such legislation, which we have to consider, bearing in mind the committee’s recent report. However, on the balance of probabilities, I do not think that it is a major risk if we permit the provisions to continue for another six months.

It has been fascinating to listen to the evidence. It has been educational for me to recognise that the petition represents an assertion of the triumph of civilisation over barbarism. We are trying to come to an agreement about how best to express that in our society. I increasingly realise the importance of what you seek to achieve and why it is being advocated for, so the evidence has been powerful.

Do you intend to encourage the member in charge of the proposed bill to cover all three elements of what you are trying to achieve? As I understand it, the proposed bill would legislate primarily for a pardon, but could it also stipulate terms for a national memorial? Could that be incorporated into such a bill?

Would an apology highlight themes of victimisation, bullying and ostracism in our current society? Would it have a meaningful effect on any relevant live debates?

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?

There is the New Glasgow Society, which is an amenity body in the city. We could also write to the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland and civil engineering bodies such as the Institution of Civil Engineers. There is the Congress for the New Urbanism in the United States. There is also Glasgow’s city urbanist. There are a number of figures who may well be able to offer expert advice. Urban planner Brent Toderian undertook a similar project in America. There might be other projects around the world that we might want to write to to ask how they did it.

There are a number of ways in which we could proceed; however, we might require to reflect further on them, and we should therefore invite the petitioner to suggest stakeholders to engage with. In that respect, it might be worth communicating with the community councils adjacent to the road as well as the Glasgow Institute of Architects. There is a range of bodies and interest groups that we could go to. I have not compiled an exhaustive list, and I could probably come up with more, but there is definitely merit in thinking about who we should speak to.

I am not necessarily saying that all those people are relevant or that it is necessary to contact everyone, but there are a number of groups out there that it might be worth engaging with. Those are just some initial 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.

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.