Seòmar agus comataidhean

You talk about the miscarriage of justice, and I think that many people would identify that as the core issue. However, many would also identify the fact that, in those days gone by, the state and the church were very male dominated and women were persecuted.

There is no question about that, and you have given evidence today about the torture and interrogation that those women went through. Whether or not it was an inquisition, that type of structure—which involved the persecution of women, primarily by men, in communities—was in place in those times gone by. It is important that we identify that, because that seems to have been one of the main processes at work. Those women were disadvantaged and vulnerable, and the male-dominated state had control over their existence and whether they continued to have a life after they were put into that situation.

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 agree that the information that we received from the organisations and individuals is very comprehensive. Once again, if the cabinet secretary comes to the committee it would give us the opportunity to put some of those questions to him and allow him to respond to the evidence.

I very much concur with that. We have looked at the petition in depth, but from the information that we have received, it seems that there are more questions than answers.

It would be useful to get the petitioner in. There are also questions to be asked of the CAA about what it is doing with HIAL. It would be useful to have some correspondence with the CAA about the co-operative radar system that has been discussed in the papers. If we are to understand the situation, we require more information. Liam McArthur and Rhoda Grant have given us a lot of detail. That has been very useful, but there are still questions that we can ask of the petitioner and the CAA.

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.

Given the information that we have received back—especially from Citizens Advice Scotland—about the timings, about individuals’ ability to pay and about the liability that applies when they fall behind, and given the increasing awareness that the whole idea of funds and support for individuals who are finding it difficult to pay is a very important topic, I think that we need to get more clarity from the Scottish Government as to how it is attempting to address that and whether there is an opportunity to undertake the review that is being sought. That would give us the chance to see and hear what the Scottish Government is planning to do under the process.