Seòmar agus comataidhean

I concur. I recognise that some of the issues are being raised in casework, and the petitioner has identified a valid public need to investigate the issue further, so I am content with the suggestion that we continue the petition.

That is helpful. What do you hope that the Government formally giving an apology would achieve?

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?

I have a general point about SSI 2022/26, which makes speed limit adjustments on the central Scotland motorway network. Although this particular instrument relates to slip roads, there is a wider practice whereby speed limit changes to the trunk road network are not generally consulted on publicly. Such changes would benefit from wider public consultation, particularly given recent reports of the significant effects of noise pollution in the centre of Glasgow because of the motorway network. For example, it has been reported that the noise pollution at Charing Cross is equivalent to the noise pollution experienced when standing on the runway at Glasgow airport.

There are significant environmental effects on the general public. The practice should be to have a public consultation on any adjustments to speed limits, rather than there simply being a closed shop involving councils and the emergency services. Perhaps the lead committee could take that into consideration.

Thank you very much for inviting me to address the committee, convener.

The proposed cross-party group on migration would be quite a wide-ranging forum in which stakeholders, policy makers and those with lived experience would discuss any matters arising in relation to migrants, refugees or people seeking asylum in Scotland. Although immigration policy is a reserved matter for the House of Commons, the cross-party group would engage on, consider and raise awareness of ways in which we can make an impact on issues to do with immigration and migration, asylum and refugees in Scotland, because there are a number of important interfaces with the Scottish Parliament’s competencies as well as with local government colleagues. Having an integrated approach is vital to improving the quality of life for people who are affected by current policy.

The area is definitely well established as a public interest area. Currently, there is no CPG that focuses on it at Holyrood, despite thousands of people in Scotland being impacted by the issues.

The creation of the cross-party group would be particularly beneficial given recent significant and relevant events such as the passage of the Nationality and Borders Bill in the UK Parliament and the on-going humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan.

I thank everyone for their consideration.

The key measure of success is effectively expediting policy ideas that key stakeholder groups, particularly in Glasgow, have been advocating. Almost all asylum seekers in Scotland are resident in the Glasgow City Council area, because it is the only council area in Scotland that participates in the dispersal programme. However, there are refugee communities around Scotland and resettlement programmes in the refugee programme that disperse people around Scotland. A number of concerns have been raised by key stakeholder groups, particularly Maryhill Integration Network, which has been especially instrumental in helping to establish the cross-party group. There are issues to do with exclusion from housing, transport and social exclusion. Obviously, there was the tragedy with the Park Inn disaster in Glasgow in the summer of 2020.

Bearing in mind all those issues, it is important to bring together the forum to allow us to channel frustrations and issues so that the Scottish Government can potentially ameliorate some of the concerns that people are experiencing. That would be largely in a humanitarian sense; it would not necessarily interfere with immigration policy or even with the no recourse to public funds condition, which is a potential condition on social security support.

One suggestion has been the extension of concessionary travel to asylum seekers. That would be within the gift of the Scottish Government. The cross-party group could promote such ideas.