 I welcome everyone to this, the third meeting of the citizens of participation and public petitions committee in 2022. I have apologies today from our convener, Jackson Carlaw, therefore I will convene today's meeting in his place. The first item on our agenda today is a consideration of the continued petitions. Petitions 1855, pardon and memorialise have been convicted under the witchcraft act of 1563. The first continued petition for consideration is PE 1855, pardon and memorialise, which is convicted under the witchcraft act of 1563, which has been lodged by Claire Mitchell QC. The petition calls in the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to pardon, apologise and create a national monument to memorialise these people in Scotland accused and convicted as witches under the witchcraft act of 1563. At our last consideration of a petition in January, we decided that we would invite our petitioners into hear from them directly. I am therefore pleased to welcome Claire Mitchell QC and Zoya Vendatosi to the committee this morning. Claire is joining us in the Scottish Parliament and Zoya is joining us remotely. Claire, do you have any comments to start with? Good morning. First of all, I want to thank you very much for the opportunity today to come and speak and answer any questions that you have for us. We are delighted to see that the progress that has already been made with this bill and we watched with careful interest the first time it called. We were delighted to note the positive response that it got. We are just very happy to come here today and answer any questions that you would like us to. So, do you have any initial comments? Yes, thanks for having us. Okay. I'm just bit. I will start the questions then. What first led you to explore the experience of witches convicted in Scotland and why did you feel it was important to bring forward this petition to us now? I work as a lawyer and I have specialised over the past years in cases involving miscarriages of justice. I suppose that I look at the lens of history through things that happened, whether or not they are just or not, whether or not things have been done correctly. I have always known the story of Scottish witches, but I didn't know them. I wasn't taught them in school, so it's only later in life that I come to really look at them from an academic perspective and look at what happened. Around about the same time as I was looking at them from an academic perspective, I was reading quite a lot of things about the lack of representation of women in history. In particular, a book by a woman, Sarah Sheridan, who wrote the book, Where Are The Women? She reimagined Scotland as a place where all the statues are to women, all the street names are to women. It's like a guide book where you can read all the stories of women that these streets have been named after. A combination of learning more about my own history and the history of women in Scotland and looking at those witchcraft trials led me one day to be standing in Princess Street Gardens looking around. I thought that there are no named statues to women, there are named statues to men, there are memorials to men and, of course, it's very important that we memorialise things such as people who have died in war. Memorialisation is very important, but I thought that we are not memorialising Scottish women's history properly, we are not properly recording the history of things that aren't wars or battles. I looked over where I was standing at, I went round the Princess Street Gardens and stood up beside Vojcek the Bear. I was like, we've got a bear, we've got a full-sized statue of a named bear but we don't have any women. I looked at that point up to the Castle Esplanade where I know that 300 women at least were killed as witches. I thought that not only aren't we recording the great things that women have done in celebrating them in statue forms and names of streets but we're also not recording a terrible history of things that happened to women in the past. I say women because under the witchcraft act where 4,000 people were accused, 85 per cent of them were women so I immediately acknowledged that there were men as well but the vast majority of them were women. At that point I thought that there's a real issue here with what happened with these women. I know that these women were wrongly convicted. We all know that these people were wrongly convicted, that's where the word witch hunt comes from. This is a witch hunt, which means that I'm being pursued for something that I didn't do. I looked around other countries and saw that other countries have addressed their history—the Salem witch trials have been addressed, Norway witch trials have been addressed, and Germany witch trials have been addressed—and I thought, why hasn't Scotland? At that point I went back and I wrote the three things that I thought were important to get. A pardon for those who have been convicted of witchcraft, the effect of that would be to restore them to people and to make it clear that what happened to them ought never to have happened. You can't pardon those who haven't been convicted but in fact although 2,500 people were probably executed, 4,000 people were accused. Those additional people went through a great deal of trauma and were accused. They might have suffered torture, and we know, for example, that people died when they were remanded in custody and were accused of witchcraft. I would like an apology for all those people. Finally, I thought that what Scotland should have is some kind of national memorial, something that not only allows us a talking point about our own history but also lets people who visit our country know our history and know that we have acknowledged our history and have vowed to do better. It was at that point that the Witches of Scotland campaign was born. Very shortly after, I got in contact with my co-campioner Zoe Venda Totsi, and from there, that's when the campaign started on International Women's Day 2020. I thank you for that very comprehensive answer, because my next bit was on pardons. I apologise in the national monument, so I think you've covered them all. Zoe, do you have anything to say on that? I think just that we think it's very important. It's become increasingly obvious to us during the campaign that this isn't an issue that is relegated to the past, sadly. There are countries around the world where this is a relevant issue now, where the vulnerable are accused of witchcraft and often isolated and sometimes killed by mob justice, and we know from campaigners that we've worked with abroad that they would value so greatly Scotland's support of that by saying that we know that it was something wrong in our past and signalling to other nations that we would support them to eradicate accusations of witchcraft as well. My colleagues are now going to ask some questions, and I'm going to go to Ruth Maguire. Thank you, convener, and good morning. I wonder if you could start by letting us know what would lead to someone to a woman being accused of witchcraft. There are some misapprehensions about the type of women who were accused of witchcraft. I wonder if you could speak to that a little first. Zoe, do you want to begin? Sadly, it could be anything. It could be that you had fallen out with somebody over the price that you'd paid for something. It could be that you were a difficult person in the community. It could be that you were what we would now view as being vulnerable, but at those times there would have been people that were seen as being unusual or strange in some way. It could be that somebody wanted your land, that you were practising as a Catholic secretly. It could be lots and lots of different things. This is something that we've come back to again and again is that anybody could have the finger pointed at them to say to them that you are a witch and it would be very difficult to get out of that situation again. It could be anything, literally. It wasn't generally, there's a misapprehension, that it was healers and midwives, but that's actually due to some recent research that's being done. We know that that's actually just a small percentage of those that were accused. It could be literally anybody. Yes, the misconceptions really are that the people who were accused were healers and midwives, that's that commonly, or that they had red hair or there was something that marked them out. And very sadly, as a local memorial in Orkney says, a very beautiful memorial, they were just folk. They were just people going about their everyday lives. The difficulty was at that time that both the state and the church ffervently were of the view that the devil was working amongst the community and the ills that befell the community was the devil working amongst the community by way of witches. So a very easy example, if a woman came to the door asking for alms to help just any form of help begging, and she left without any money, perhaps because the person who answered the door didn't have any money to give, but she left without money, then if an illness or something wrong befell that family, there would be a suspicion and an accusation that that woman had used witchcraft to do that because she didn't get alms. That's one of the saddest type of examples where someone so vulnerable with no money asking for help eventually ends up being accused in this way. There were various tests for whether or not you were a witch when it came to trial and one of them was being what reminds me of a James Cagney movie. The phrase quarrelsome dame, if you were a quarrelsome dame you might be more likely to be accused or you're more likely to fall out with your neighbours and therefore the suspicion be if something happened that the devil was amongst us, but that was very much the belief at the time. People believed that what was happening and unfortunately they were encouraged in that belief very much from all sides. So really it's unsurprising that people had that view, so sadly no one was immune from accusations. The majority of people involved were relatively poor, however it did cut across social and economic divides as well and some people were rich and even aerals, for example, were accused of witchcraft. I'm sorry, I just keep coming back in, convener. I'll not wait for an invite. Another thing that I'm interested in is who would normally conduct the trials and what sort of evidence would be used to secure a conviction. Claire, you gave an example there of if someone fell ill after or any sort of negative experience fell a community. Are there any other specific examples that you can give about the evidence that the state would use and who would conduct the trials please? Certainly. The trials and other misconceptions that these were religious trials they were conducted by the state and that's why I think it's appropriate that the state provides an apology. What would happen is that allegations would be made in the local community, now all sorts of allegations would be made but they usually related to an ill befalling someone and in some way a narrative being connected with that person whether or not they'd quarrelled in the market, whether or not they'd had a fight but examples could have been sadly as easy as we're seen out late at night, we're seen out dancing beside a fire, just very ordinary examples of what people may have done but attributed to being a witch in the work of the devil. So when an accusation was made what happened usually was that they were taken to the local place to incarcerate people like the toll booth and they were kept there for a period of time, remanded until they were questioned. Questioning took the form of keeping people awake, watching and waiting and asking them questions. Scotland in a sense was beyond other countries at the time because it didn't physically torture people as much as other people, there are instances of torture but what they used to do was keep people awake not just for hours on end but for days asking questions. Of course we know in the modern day that that is one of the most insidious forms of torture because people lose their mind if they're not allowed the opportunity to sleep, so after days on end of not sleeping, we know this by the way because we have some people who can trace the records of people taking turns to sit and ask questions, they even have records for example of how many candles were used burning through the night because all those things had to be accounted for to keep people awake and ask those questions. So when a confession was obtained the confession would be used as the basis of the evidence but confessing a loan to these crimes wasn't enough which is as people understood it worked in Coven so you wouldn't be doing this alone you'd be asked for further names and of course people in delirium would give the names of friends would give the names of families and sadly led to those people being brought in and to the same thing happening and we can see why exponentially the witchcraft accusations would grow in that way so once a confession was obtained the state would prosecute the matter and they would be brought before court they wouldn't be able to give evidence in their own right because it wasn't competent for evidence to be given in their own right in particular it wasn't competent for women to be witnesses in a courtroom however at that time I don't think it was in fact competent mostly for most or any accused to give evidence but even in any event women weren't competent witnesses so they would bring witnesses to court as somewhat in the same way as they do now to see what had happened to them if they'd had a fight what had been said or what they'd seen them do and then they would lead evidence of the confession and the confession then as it was now is a very powerful statement against self-interest people do confess in the modern day even not under torture to things that they haven't done and people find it very strange that they do so but we know psychologically that people confess to things they haven't done even when they're not being tortured but in these sorts of cases of course we know that's exactly what would happen so it would be a kin to a modern day judge who would then decide whether or not the person was guilty of witchcraft or not and the sentence imposed on people in those circumstances was execution we see one or two instances of people being banished as witches but for if the law was being applied properly which in most cases we imagine it was execution was what would happen and people would be executed by being strangled and then being burnt their body being burnt and therefore receiving no form of no form of ability for loved ones to bury them or anything of the likes. Thank you. You mentioned some figures in your opening statement of three and a half thousand people executed in four thousand tortured. The survey figures set out in the survey of Scottish Witchcraft. How confident are you that they present an accurate picture of the number of women affected by this during the period? The experts obviously have done a great deal of research on this and they have gone through insofar as they can the records of what has happened. What we're finding out now is some citizen investigators, some people look themselves and go and look at records and find additional names. For example, we know that an academic student in Gormann or Langlands in Forfer has looked and found additional names. If anything, the number might be slightly under reported. The survey of Scottish Witchcraft itself says in its introduction the limitations that they had and, as with anything else, limitations are time and money for looking for these things. The numbers that are there are an approximation given to us by academic experts who have researched this matter thoroughly. I should also say that when we're looking at those numbers, the four thousand approximately accused and the two and a half thousand approximately executed, that was at a time when Scotland was a number of approximately 900,000 people. We're not looking at Scotland as it is in the modern day, we're looking at a much, much smaller country and therefore we can perhaps see that the impact of those numbers are even bigger looked at from that perspective. I think that that does something to the scale of it, doesn't it? Can I ask now about the change in law in 1735 after so-called glorious revolution? Can you talk a bit more about that, about the impact on witchcraft convictions and sentences and any reflections about why it took over 200 years for the 1735 act to be repealed? I'm sorry, I'll maybe answer just this legal one again, and no doubt so we can take over after. In terms of reflection, the fact was that the state and the church vehemently believed that the devil was amongst us, and it wasn't until societal views started to change that there was a change in the witchcraft act. The fact that it took so long was simply because I think the society was steeped in that belief during that period of time. What happened when the witchcraft act ended was that the new 1736 act was brought into force. That 1736 act changed the crime of witchcraft to pretended witchcraft, so automatically we were already accepting that the crime of witchcraft didn't exist. We changed from that crime to pretending witchcraft, so I can't imagine a more striking acceptance of the fact that witchcraft didn't exist even at that time. In relation to the sentence that was imposed, the sentence was imposed was non-custodial. I think that it went down to a fine or custody, but you could be convicted of pretending witchcraft and receive a fine. To put that into some form of perspective, the last person executed in Scotland as a witch is believed to be Janet Horne, and that was either 1722 or 1727. There's a stone where people debate what date that was, but just such a very short period of time later it was public acceptance that the witchcraft act wasn't appropriate because the crime didn't exist and had to be changed to pretended witchcraft. Claire definitely has covered everything from the legal perspective. I'm not a lawyer, so I've come into this like any normal person who's come in that doesn't know anything about it, and just to say that it's staggering the numbers involved and, as Claire rightly pointed out, in such a small population there was such a lot of people that were swept up in it. Thank you, convener. Fascinating that the history you've just given us this morning and the understanding of the culture that we had here in the country at the time and the power of the state and the church in making some of these happen. You've also given us some experiences about what's happening in elsewhere and in other parts of the world and how they've managed that. How are you managing to support what you're trying to achieve when it's been such a length of time that has taken place? Ensuring that you're trying to secure those pardons, considering that they happened centuries ago, is very difficult for us and for you because it's a different world that we live in today in many respects. You've explained that the culture, the heritage, the knowledge, the myths, the understandings that Scotland had in those days are not anywhere near what we have today. How are you managing to square that circle and what have you considered and what have you discounted and why have you discounted some of those in trying to secure those pardons that happened so long ago? Of course we acknowledge that those happened a very long time ago and of course it is a relevant and necessary question for us to be able to answer. The first answer that I would have to that is that there is no time limit on justice. That was wrong when it happened. Those people were not guilty of those offences and they paid a terrible price in the most brutal way. The fact that those people were killed and convicted as witches was wrong then and it's wrong now. One question we might ask, rather than why now, why would we do this now hundreds of years later? One question we might ask is why didn't we do this hundreds of years before? Why has it taken till now to address this point in Scottish history? The answer very much, I believe, is that history is written by the victors. History wasn't written by the people who then, over those years, couldn't write the ordinary people who couldn't record their history in that way. As such, the history of Scotland witchcraft has fallen, I suppose. It's been an academic exercise but not one for the general public. I think that, most importantly in respect of the question that you asked about what about the changing of times, if that happened then, how can you square it with the modern day? One of the things that really encouraged me in bringing forward this was the recent parliamentary decision to pardon those convicted of homosexual offences many years ago. What the Parliament said when it granted the pardon to those people convicted of same-sex offences was that those people ought never to have been criminalised for something that wasn't a crime. That is true for those people and I heartily endorse that. It is also true for the people who were killed as witches. One other thing that I would like to reflect on when we were talking about it being a long time ago, 300 or 400 years ago, seems like a long time. In the grand scale of history, it is the blink of an eye. We still talk about things that affected Scotland 300 or 400 years ago. Things are very important to us and I hesitate to say once again that the history that we know better about is, for example, things of battles, which happened a considerably longer time ago than that. We still reflect upon and learn from those things. That is something that I hope that we can do in the modern day, is reflect upon what happened then and bring that of use to the 21st century. People say that it was hundreds of years ago and that they cannot help those people now. I say that we can try to restore those people properly to history as people who suffered a miscarriage of justice. That is the first thing. What we can also do as citizens is to reflect upon what caused that to happen, why people who were in a vulnerable situation were subject to allegations and were used in a power structure that meant that they paid with their lives. We can reflect upon that wrong and vow to do better. I also speak more broadly about a symbol for the world, so I have no doubt that you will have more answers to that question, too. Although we have changed a lot in that time, we have obviously grown, we are more civilised, and we would view ourselves as being more civilised. There is still an on-going issue with vulnerable communities. We are not at a stage where people are really wonderful to everybody else. It would give a really important signal that we protect the vulnerable in our society, that everybody has a fair shake of the legal system and that we are thinking and thoughtful about who we are as a nation. If we want to be seen as a beacon of intelligence and sensitivity, it is a really good way of saying that internationally that we are thoughtful and we are looking at our past and we are mindful of it in the same way that there are moves that are on-going to look at our past involvement as a nation with slavery. We need to look at the things that happened in the past that we are not proud of now and understand it so that those things are not repeated again. You talk about the miscarriage of justice, and I think that that is the core where many people would identify. In those days gone by, it was very male-dominated—the state and the church—and women were persecuted. There is no question that you have given evidence today that explains about torture and the interrogation that they went through. Whether it was an inquisition, that type of structure happened in those times gone by, but that is the persecution of women primarily by men in communities seemed to be what happened at that time. I think that that is very important that we identify that, because that seems to be one of the main processes that those women were disadvantaged, they were vulnerable and the state had a control, but it was a male-dominated state that had a control over their existence and if they continued to have a life after they were put into this situation. I absolutely could not agree more. That is exactly as it was. What we want for Scotland in the 21st century and what we want looking forward is that we want a generation that comes after us, which is equal. We have made great steps forward in the 19th and 20th century towards equality, but we are not there yet. It is still a vitally important part of our country that we reflect upon where we have come from in order that we can go forward and achieve that equality. I think that the point that you make is very valid and well-made. Ruth, I do believe that you have some more questions. Thank you, convener. I think that they have been covered. I wanted to explore a little bit more the discriminated nature of things, but in evidence the petitioners have told us that predominantly women and people with other vulnerabilities have covered that aspect. Are colleagues going to ask about Natalie Dawn's bill? I will ask Ruth, but if you want to do that, you can, okay? Where do you go? I am kind of flying blind here at home, I am sorry. A colleague, Natalie Dawn, is bringing forward a member's bill on this issue. I just wondered if the petitioners were able to give committee an update on their knowledge of it and their views on the scope and whether that addresses what they are looking to do. Yes, we have. We spoke to Natalie. Natalie Dawn approached us when she found out about the campaign and indicated that she was interested in bringing a private member's bill, which we were absolutely delighted about the prospect of. She was invited here today, but coincided with another committee that she had already said that she would attend, so that she could not attend. However, she passed on to me today that the situation is currently that the consultation process is on-going. There is a draft consultation, that is ready for submission tomorrow, in order that that can presumably go out and the public can have an opportunity to consult on that. I believe that that is the next step forward. That is whether that is. She said that there had been a bit of tune froing about the draft consultation itself, but things appear to be ready. She said that she would hopefully pass us over a copy of that, so that we could have an opportunity to read it before it goes in. That will either happen later today or tomorrow. Thank you for what you have just been fascinating to listen to this testimony, because it has been educational for me to recognise that it represents a assertion of the triumph of civilisation over barbarism. That is what we are trying to come to an agreement about how best to express in our community and in our society today. I am increasingly realising the importance of why that is being advocated for. It has been really powerful. On the member's bill, do you intend to try to encourage the scope of that to meet all three elements of what you are trying to achieve in terms of the bill primarily looking at, as I understand, legislation to offer a pardon, but also maybe stipulating about terms for our national memorial? Could that be something that could be incorporated into such a bill? To be frank, I do not know, because I have not seen the draft. I think that the draft is only relating to the legislation alone. That is all that has been discussed, so I do not think that that contains anything about a national memorial. In relation to the apology, I should indicate to the committee that, as I have talked to, I have contacted the Scottish Government via writing directly to the Government and the First Minister. I am requesting that the First Minister consider the Government giving an apology on International Women's Day this year. We have not heard back yet in that regard, so I do not also know whether that will happen. However, as I say, the apology is broader to encapsulate all the people that were accused, because only those who were convicted can be pardoned, and we want something for everyone. We have asked for a period of time to be set aside for the Government and the state to reflect on what happened and to publicly state what happened was wrong and to present that apology, and no better a time given the gendered nature of the way the act was implemented than the International Women's Day to do so. However, we are yet to see whether or not there is any possibility that that will happen. That is very helpful. What exact effects do you hope the apology would achieve by it being formally given by the Government? I do not know, Zoe. Would you like to answer that, or will I start? I think that it would signify that it is something that would go out on an important day, that would symbolise Scotland's understanding of what happened in the past and that it was a miscarriage of justice, and that it would give a very important message that we are trying, as a nation, to look at what we did and to try to reach parity for women in modern society. I think that the First Minister's National Council on Women and Girls has a quote at the start of it. Unfortunately, I do not have it to hand, but it talks about history being only recorded by one side and why it is important that history be properly recorded and the history of women be recorded in making ways to do that in order that we can move forward. The idea that we would present an apology on an important day, like International Women's Day, is symbolic but no less important for it being so. It is an important thing that we see in the 21st century that we accept what happened was wrong. We spoke earlier when we were talking about things happening only three or four hundred years ago. We are somebody's history. In two or three thousand years' time, hopefully children in Scotland will be reading their history books, and they will say blithly, from the 15th to the 21st century, and they will say it like it was a blink of an eye, I want to be able for children in the future to read in a book that reflected on what happened to women and men in the 21st century during this terrible period of time and took the time to remember what happened and to say to those people publicly that what happened was wrong and to try to make ourselves better in reflection as a result of that. Do you think that there is potentially the effect of having the apology that might introduce current themes of victimisation in current society? Do you think that it might reflect on how people can be bullied and ostracised in our current society? I think that there might be relevant debates that would actually have a meaningful effect on live debates. I think that there are lines that can be drawn, parallel lines, and we always come back to this idea that we need to protect the vulnerable in society and that we need to be thoughtful and sensitive. I am a teacher, I work in additional support needs, I work in that area, so I am very passionate about that. I think that we need to be just being thoughtful and clever about this and saying that we need to protect the vulnerable. I think that an apology would definitely have that parallel where we could say that this terrible thing happened because people were picked on because they didn't have our power and that could be definitely used thoughtfully at this time in Scotland. Zoe, we've been asked, haven't we, by a number of teachers, for resources to help to encourage teaching in that regard? Yes, definitely. It's the idea of bullying and how the powerful can use that power for negative reasons and impact on people's lives. I think that definitely there's huge modern relevance. You mentioned the symbolism of international women's days. Is there a specific figure that you would wish to issue the apology in the Government or is it just generally the Government that is satisfactory? Well, we've written to the First Minister and obviously it would be ideal if the First Minister, as a woman, issued the apology on international women's day. Again, it's very important for women, particularly young people, to see women in positions of power. As yet, sadly, we're not generation equal, although many women have positions of power as a generality that is not across and over the board. It would be a great thing for Scotland if it was our First Minister that did that. Would you prefer that to be in the form of a verbal apology in the chamber of the Parliament, for example, as opposed to a written thing or perhaps both? Both, any and all. Speaking as somebody who is involved in oral advocacy, it's, of course, powerful when you see someone speaking about those things. That would be great. Any kind of apology would be very welcome. I'd also like to touch on the national monument idea, which is really interesting. Is there other examples internationally? You mentioned that there was a community memorial in the north of Scotland, but are there international examples of where that has been done well in relation to the national memorial to victims of this superstitious practice? We should acknowledge first of all that, of course, there are local memorials, and they are fantastic. When people say, well, don't you want local memorials? Yes, I do. I want those in addition to those, but it would be great to have a national memorial. There are other examples of memorials, particularly in Finmark. Do you want to do Finmark in Norway? Maybe you could tell us about that. The memorial in Norway in Finmark is really striking because it was two internationally recognised artists, and it provokes the thought that people go along and it's a big, moving monument. It's not just a static here or some names, which would also be wonderful. It would be great to have any national memorial, but we've got an opportunity here where we have such an incredible body of artists that are working in Scotland to make something that's really striking that again signals to the rest of the world that Scotland is a forward-thinking nation. I'd like to see something that's really quite imaginative and would be very striking. What do you hope that the idea of a national memorial will achieve and also where would you look to have it cited? Have you got an idea perhaps around how that might be commissioned? Is it a competition or some sort of activity that you're planning to undertake? I think that Zoe and I have got the campaign to this stage. We would like, as the lawyer said, to have an agreement in principle for a national memorial, but we are not ourselves equipped to carry out the task of identifying the national memorial. What we would like is that agreement in principle so that others whose job it is to do those sorts of things memorialise are invited to bid or however it is done. We have a lot of people contacting us suggesting that it should be in their area or suggesting artists. There's a real keenness and a real buzz around the idea, so I'm sure that if ever that was done there would be a lot of people that would be interested in doing it, but we are just interested in having the idea in principle. I don't know if you want to add anything, Zoe. No, I just don't want to have to build a monument myself. I think that that's the main thing. We're very keen for it to happen and there are people who are absolute professionals at that side of things, so as Claire says, we would just like it to be agreed and then for somebody that really knows what they're doing to make something wonderful and affecting. We also tweeted a tweet that's got hundreds, perhaps if not thousands of responses. We tweeted, would it be good in Scotland to have a museum of witch hunts to have some place that people could go rather than the beautiful memorial in Finmark is incredibly striking memorial, but actually a place where people can go and learn. We have a podcast, as Zoe and I start a podcast to get people interested in this and we've been utterly overwhelmed by the interest in the podcast. I should state very clearly that it's not Zoe and I talking about these things. We don't know about them. It's the experts coming to speak to us. It's experts in their area, be it academics, historians, lawyers, activists, authors—the list goes on—but we speak to all those different people about these things. What is clear is that there's a huge need for knowledge about this area. I spoke about people getting contact with us to ask us whether or not we'd consider doing podcasts for children that were child friendly and we've been contacted by someone recently who writes comics who wants to do something about the campaign to tell people about these things. So there have been lots of different ways that people have been trying to interact, but the idea of having a place where people could go be at a museum or a heritage centre somewhere where people could find out the true history of the women of Scotland would be a really amazing thing. I'm not trying to push and change for a national memorial, but we've got an opportunity to think outside the box. Does a memorial need to be, as Zoe says, a static statue? Could it be something else? Could it be something that assists learning, like a physical place where people can learn about those sorts of things? Just some thoughts on that. We mentioned the Esplanade Edinburgh Castle and your reflections on that. That might be an obvious location, but it might be worth considering engaging with Historic Environment Scotland to manage a lot of historic properties across Scotland. Many of them will have been physically involved in the legacy of that practice. They might find an appropriate location and it might be worth engaging in that discussion now to develop the idea. Another couple of campaigns in terms of memorials that have been involved with was the member of Mary Barber campaign in Glasgow to raise a statue to Mary Barber on the rent strikers in Govan. That was a community-led thing. There was a lot of persistent fundraising and commissioning and design competition and so on, but it was very much had to be driven by the campaign. Similarly, recently, the ungotten war memorial in the east end of Glasgow to the Irish famine victims. Again, it was a persistent community-led campaign. Those initiatives can help to drive the projects. It might be worth looking at examples such as those that might help to drive things forward. Absolutely. Those two were excellent examples of the way that the community wants to have their history properly reflected. Those are two absolutely inspirational community projects. What is important is that we do not have to rely on the funding for individuals for this. I think that it is important that the community interest is already there. Let me tell you if I could just pass on all the witches of Scotland emails that I have to someone else. The community interest and community support is there, but it is important that funding is done centrally and Scotland as a whole is given that forward. You are absolutely right that the importance of engaging the community in this is great. I should say that the witches well that we have at the top of the Esplanade at the moment still sits there. It is a historical artefact, but it says that 300 witches were burned here. That is what it said. Some use their power for good, some use it for evil. People just walk past all the day and I am thinking, just take out the word witches there and put in the word women. It just sits there and we do not really reflect on it. It is because the idea of the word witch has permeated into our society in a way that, when people say the word witch, it is just a figure of fun, it is just something that is a cartoon, it is just something that is in a book, but we actually do not reflect properly upon that history. That is why having the campaign with those aims and having all those discussions is a really great opportunity for Scotland to reflect on its history. Thank you very much. It is an impressive testimony, so thank you. Thank you, Paul. Can I just update the committee? Natalie Don's private member bill is only about the pardon, not about the national memorial or apology. Claire Zoey, do you have anything to add that you have not been asked about? Do you like to give any evidence? I think that the questions have been very thorough, so can you think of anything else? No, I cannot. I would just like to say again that I think that this is really important. It is not something that belongs in the past. I think that it is something that we just need to address now as well and it just behooves an intelligent nation such as ours. Can I say Claire Zoey, thank you very much for the comprehensive evidence that you have provided today. It is good to see people bark in Parliament given the evidence that you have provided, so thank you very much. Could I recommend to committee members that we take the evidence at a future meeting in any matter arising from it? Is that agreed? I can say thank you once again, and can I suspend the meeting for five minutes to allow witnesses to leave? Can I welcome everyone back to Citizens Participation and Public Petition Committee? Our second continued petition is petition 1854, the view of adult disability payment eligible criteria for people with mobility needs, which has been lodged by Keith Park on behalf of MS Society. Petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to remove the 20 metre rule for the purpose proposed adult disability payment eligibility criteria or identify an alternative form of support for people with mobility needs. Committee last considered this petition at its meeting on 17 November 2021 and agreed to write to Citizens Advice Scotland, Parkinson's UK Scotland, Neurological Alliance of Scotland and MS Society Scotland. The committee was keen to understand whether stakeholders believe changes in the eligible criteria for new disability benefits in Scotland would risk other reserved benefits being withdrawn. Responses to committee's correspondence largely stated that stakeholders do not believe that changes to a 20 metre rule would impact on past supporting to reserved benefits. Stakeholders also challenged the Scottish Government's concern about creating a two-tier system as a result of different eligibility criteria for PIP and adult disability payments. The Scottish Government has previously stated that there will be an independent review of adult disability payments, which will port back in 2023. I understand that the work on this review will begin later this year. Do any of our colleagues have any suggestions? I have certainly been very impressed by the body of evidence that the committee has gathered already on this, and it seems like it is a fairly consistent refrain that we have from stakeholders about that this would not necessarily impinge upon reserved benefits, that there is a mechanism here to achieve the reform that has been advocated for by the petitioner. Certainly, having spoken or corresponded with some of the stakeholders, the view seems to be that, although they are welcoming the review taking place, it is going to start. I think that there is still concern over the pace of that. Also, a view of what role does this committee take in regard to that review, whether the committee continues to seek evidence, whether it relates to that evidence and whether the committee itself makes a submission, to the review based on the evidence that the committee has gathered. I suppose that the question then is not whether we are in agreement that this is going to happen, that this review is going to take place. I think that that is a welcome development. It is a question of whether this committee has a role or a locus in making a submission itself and whether we are required to keep the petition open in order to do so. I guess that that is what we need to consider. I would agree that we need to get that clarity, convener, so that we understand the implications. We have already had some of that from the Scottish Government in what they are suggesting. However, the petitioner himself and the organisation need to think about the way forward that could be used and might be. I would be very supportive of trying to see if that could be achieved. Ruth Davidson, do you have any comments? I am in trouble with my microphone, convener. I concur with colleagues there. If the committee has agreed, we will encourage or ask the Scottish Government to engage with the stakeholders in the review. If we could get that commitment from the Scottish Government that they will do it, we will bring the petition back to committee and decide what to do with it then. The next item on our agenda is our final continued petition this morning. It is petition 1910 to amend the forthcoming legal requirements to have interlinked fire and smoke alarms in small houses, which has been lodged by Ian Nicolle. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce an exemption for smaller houses from the requirement to have interlinked smoke and fire alarms fitted. That requirement came into force at the beginning of this month. The committee last considered this petition at its meeting on 1 December 2021, where it heard that a fund had been put in place by the Scottish Government to help vulnerable households to install new alarms. The committee subsequently wrote to the Scottish Government to query how it planned to review the effectiveness of the financial support offered and to establish what work was being done to protect vulnerable homeowners when they are raging the installation of new alarms in their homes. The Scottish Government's response stated that it receives regular returns from Care and Repair Scotland on the use of its fund and the number of homes that have received free subsidised alarms. It is also reviewing those returns and maintaining engagement with Care and Repair to identify any gaps in support and ensure the effective use of its fund. It also highlights a recent media awareness campaign, which includes information on alarms types and the importance of using reputable tradespeople to fit these. Petitioner's recent submission raises concerns about the lack of public awareness, about precisely what is required to comply with the new standards, a shortage in appropriate equipment and tradespeople, and a lack of clarity in relation to the penalties for non-compliance. The petitioner exclaims that he brought equipment when he first read it about legislation and subsequently found out that it did not meet the requirements. Do any members have any suggestions? You have identified many of the issues. This has been controversial over the timescale and there has been a lot of anxiety prior to that. I know that there was a delay initially from what the Government set with our process, but I think that what we now have here is an understanding of where we are with the process, in that there has been a fund set up, that the communication has improved, and there is now a route for individuals who may be vulnerable in that situation. However, with respect to the actual petition itself, in indicating that there to be an exclusion for small houses, that is not going to happen. The Government has made that quite clear that that is not their intention. I think that because of that and because of what has now taken place in the timescale and the policies and practices that have been put in place, I am not clear if we can take that any further. I would suggest that, under rule 15.7 standing orders, we close the petition at this stage, because I do not feel that there is anything else that can be achieved in the timescale that has been put forward. Thank you, Alex. I understood any other opinions from committee members. Do we agree to close the petition and understand rule 15.7? Thank you. The second item on our agenda today is the consideration of new petitions. As you will be aware, the committee seeks advanced views from the Scottish Government on all new petitions before they are formally considered, and those are shared with the committee as part of the meeting papers. Our first new petition today is petition 1906, Investigate options for removing and reducing the impact of central Glasgow's section of the M8, which has been lodged by Peter Kelly on behalf of Act to Replace the M8. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to commission an independent feasibility study to investigate scenarios for reducing the impact of the M8 between the M74 and Glasgow Cathedral, including specifically complete removal and repurposing of the land. In its submission, the Scottish Government confirms that, in February 2021, Transport Scotland published a Glasgow region initial appraisal case for change report. That was one step in the wider transport appraisal process and helped to identify problems and opportunities related to a transport network in the Glasgow region. The Scottish Government advises that appraisal work on the range of transport options contained within the report has progressed over the summer and the final set of draft recommendations will be published later this winter. The Scottish Government also highlights that the review has already considered a large amount of evidence related to a whole transport network across the Glasgow region, including the M8 corridor. That has been supported by a significant engagement exercise, which to date has not identified or proposed any significant change to the M8. The submission also confirms that Transport Scotland is aware of the aspirations of the M8 cap at Charyon Cross and has been willing to participate in those discussions and will continue to do so. The Scottish Government states that it believes that there is currently no need for a separate piece of work in relation to a section of the M8 throughout the Glasgow city centre. Do any members have any comments? This has certainly been an interesting campaign that I have some familiarity with because it hosted an exhibition during COP26 in the new Glasgow society in the city. It seems to have been motivated by the recent developments with the structural condition of the Woodside Vidux in the centre of Glasgow, which will potentially lead to hundreds of millions of pounds being spent on rebuilding the infrastructure that was completed in 1971. That led to a discussion during COP26 about other cities worldwide, what they have done best practice—the big dig in Boston, for example, and other examples such as in San Francisco, Paris, Seoul and South Korea. There is also an international campaign, The Campaign for New Urbanism, which advocates for reducing the impact of elevated, segregated motorways at high speed through city centres worldwide. It does not seem to have been much of a feature in Transport Scotland's consideration so far. That has identified itself in its own activity. It has never once fundamentally reappraised the merits of having a major concrete elevated motorway through the centre of the biggest city in Scotland, and whether that is a sanity check that is needed. Glasgow itself—large amounts of the population were displaced to construct the roads. The communities of Cough Cadens, Townhead and Anderson were cleared. Glasgow itself is the only city in the western world, apart from Detroit, which had a million people in it and has then declined back below. It has lost a third of its population in the space of 30 years from 1960 to 1990. The urban blight, 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 roads. Recently, a study was carried out that identified that the noise pollution at Charing Cross in the centre of Glasgow was equivalent to standing on the runway at Glasgow Airport. You can imagine that that has only recently been discovered. Those are negative externalities and negative effects environmentally of the roads that need further investigation. The petitioner has identified a major need in public policy to look at that. It seems to fall between the cracks a little because Glasgow City Council is responsible for the general urban condition of Glasgow and the normal road network, whereas Transport Scotland and its contractor, AME, is responsible for the maintenance of the trunk road network. There is a bit of a disconnect between national responsibility for trunk roads and local considerations about the urban environment. I think that there is a need to marry the two together and get a co-ordinated and clear study undertaking. I fully support the petition's intent. At this stage, it will be worthwhile gathering further submissions from relevant stakeholders and attempting to understand whether there is a scope there to do a more thorough investigation of the merits of doing something. I do not think that it is necessarily about removing the motorway. It is not hard and fast about that. I think that, certainly, some people might advocate for that. Others might be quite alarmed by the prospect of that, which is quite reasonable, given the potential implications. However, there are certainly practical measures to reduce the environmental effect of the road, such as the capping project at the Cairn Cross. It would be good to investigate a spectrum of options that could be undertaken to try to solve some of the problems that are identified by the petitioner. Paul, can I ask what stakeholders, obviously, are in Glasgow City Council and Transport Scotland, but is there any else that you would add to that? I think that there is the new Glasgow society, which is the amenity body in the city. There is also the Royal Institute of Architects in Scotland, for example. There are potentially civil engineering bodies out there, the Institute of Civil Engineers. There is the campaign for new urbanism in the United States. There is the city urbanist in Glasgow as well, and there are other figures that might be able to offer expert advice. There is Brett Toddrian, who is the former mayor of Milwaukee, who undertook a project in America, similarly. There might be other projects around the world that we might want to write to the relevant bodies to ask how they do it. There are a number of different ways in which we could proceed that might require further reflection. We might invite the petitioner to suggest potential stakeholders to engage with as well. However, there are community councils adjacent to the road that might be worth communicating with. There is also the Glasgow Institute of Architects, so there are a range of different bodies and interest groups out there that we could go to. I have not compiled an exhaustive list, so I could come up with more, probably. However, I think that there is definitely merit in thinking about who we speak to. It is not necessary that all those people that I mentioned are relevant or necessary to contact, but there are a number of groups out there that might be worthwhile to engage with, but they are just some initial ideas. Paul, thank you very much for that comprehensive list of stakeholders, and I hope that the clerks have got it all. I have been writing if I can reflect on some ideas, but I am sure that the petitioner might have some ideas. That would be absolutely great. Is everybody agreed with that, colleagues? Thank you very much. The next new petition is petition 1915, Rainstay, Caffnes, County Council and Caffnes NHS Board, which has been lodged by William Sinclair. The petitioner highlights particular concerns about the loss of consultant-led maternity services and the closure of two pallet of care hospitals in Caffnes. In its submission, the Scottish Government states that it is committed to ensuring that decisions are taken at the right level and as close to possible as is most effective. It highlights the joint local government review with COSLA, which states aims to strengthen local democracy by considering how power could be shared between national and local government and with communities. The submission also highlights on-going work to create a national care service and a recent consultation on this topic, stating that there are currently no plans to bring about any changes to the structure of the NHS boards. The Scottish Government states that it also states its intention to introduce a local democracy bill within the lifetime of this Parliament. The Scottish Government submission explains that a decision to change from consultant-led obstructive unit in the Caffnes General Hospital to a midwife-led community maternity unit was taken on the grounds of safety. In relation to part of care, the submission advises that, while Caffnes does not have specific hospice facilities, teams locally work very closely with Highland Hospice located in Inverness. Colleagues, do you have any comments to make? Notwithstanding that the Scottish Government does not have a plan, there is no intention of restructuring health boards. I think that the crux of this matter is healthcare for individuals in Caffnes. I wonder if colleagues would agree if we could write to NHS Highland to get an update on the community midwifery unit, including a timescale for its completion. I see from our papers that there are another couple of petitions. Agency to advocate for the healthcare needs of rural Scotland and find solutions to recruitment and training challenges for rural healthcare in Scotland, that is PE1845 and PE1890. I wonder whether it might be helpful to consider all those petitions together and invite the petitioner to give us evidence. Thank you for that, Ruth. Colleagues, does anybody else have any comments? Do we agree with Ruth's recommendations? Thank you, committee. The next new petition is petition 1917, provided full legal aid to all parents fighting for access to their children, which has been lodged by Amy Stevenson. The petitioner highlights that, when couples separate and are unable to agree at contact arrangements, parents are often faced with high court costs and contact-sensor access fees, which he may struggle to afford. The petitioner states that it often results in many parents experiencing mental health issues. The Scottish Government's submission on this petition highlights a 2019 consultation on legal aid reform, which resulted in 75 per cent of respondents agreeing that those who could afford to contribute towards cost should do so. The Scottish Government's submission also explains that the number of cases relating to child contact and residence means that providing legal aid without a means to test for those seeking those court orders would have a considerable impact on the legal aid budget. The submission advises that the Scottish Government provides financial support to Relationship Scotland for the operation of contact centres. I appreciate the response from the Scottish Government on the details of legal aid and the consultation that has already passed. I appreciate the point that has been made about means testing and affordability of budgets and so on. However, I think that this is a really important matter, and it is certainly one that comes up in constituency case work for myself and other MSPs on the committee. The petitioner talks about the mental health impact on parents. I think that we also probably need to remember that it is not just about accessing justice, it is about the wellbeing of children and we need to make sure that what we have in place is helpful as possible to families going through break-ups and looking after children. I would suggest that we, in the first instance, write to some stakeholders to seek their views on the issues that are raised, including one-parent families Scotland, relationships Scotland, Scottish Civil Justice Council and the Scottish Legal Aid Board. I concur with Ruth Maguire's comments. There is no doubt that there is an impact on mental health here. In some of those situations where domestic abuse cases follow on from that, it is important that it is recognised. Our committee on equality, human rights and civil justice did a round table only yesterday on a very similar topic to that with access to support for families and for young people. It would be useful to take what came from that evidence session yesterday. It might be useful for us to think about what we are taking from that as well. I would be keen to continue to see more information and to learn from that and then come back at a further stage and analyse that. I recognise some of the issues that have been raised in case work. The petition has identified a valid public need to investigate that further, so I am content with that. It is agreed. We will keep the petition open and right to all relevant stakeholders. The next new petition is petition 1919 prohibit advertising and promotion of high caffeine products to children for performance enhanced, which has been lodged by Ted Gurley. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ban the sale of fast-release caffeine gum to under 18s for performance enhancement. The petition believes that the continued sale of such products puts children and young people at risk of serious harm. Petitioner cites examples of where such gum has been distributed widely at races, with the caffeine content exceeding the daily recommended dose for a young person. Petitioner points out that both Scottish Athletics and Sports Scotland have previously warmed up health risks in consuming high doses of caffeine, particularly for under 18s with andyno's medical issues. In its submission, the Scottish Government advises that a consultation was held in December 2018 to February 2019 on ending the sale of energy drinks to children and young people. The consultation did provide an opportunity for respondents to raise concerns in relation to other food and drink products, such as caffeine gum, as chewing gum falls under the definition of food in the food law. The Scottish Government is currently considering responses to the consultation and is undertaking to publish a report that will update the committee in due course. In May 2015, European Food Safety Authority published its scientific opinion on the safety of caffeine. It advises that a single dose of caffeine up to 200 milligrams from all sources do not raise safety concerns for healthy adult population. For children and adolescents, the European Food Safety Authority's opinion is that there is instant information available to set a safe caffeine intake. However, it considers that, due to children and adolescents processing caffeine at least at the same rate as adults, a single dose does not concern for adults may also be applied to children as a daily limit. Thank you, convener. I think that this petition has some merit. There is no doubt that caffeine has had and continues to have an effect on young people and that the petitioner himself has identified some of the concerns. I think that it would be useful for us to keep this petition open and to seek some more advice and some more information from stakeholders. They may include the children and young commissioner, the Athletics Scotland Athletics on Sport Scotland and the cardiac risk for young and food standards in Scotland. I think that all of those would be more than willing to support and give us some information on the caffeine intake and the difficulties. That would give us a much more balanced approach as to where we can take that for the future. I would like to move that we keep it open and ask for that information to be submitted, and then we can make a judge's response from that. Thank you. I was understood. Does any other committee members have any comments? On that, we will keep the petition open and write to relevant stakeholders. Is that agreed? The next new petition is petition 1920, introduced more through follow-up care for women with diabetes, which has been lodged by Laura Hastings. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide more further follow-up care for women with diabetes. In its submission, the Scottish Government outlines a range of initiatives that are available to educate and support those living with diabetes. That includes its women's health plan, published in August 2021, and its diabetes improvement plan, which was published in February 2021. It has eight priority areas, including mental health and a focus set of actions overseen by a Scottish diabetes group. Do any members have any comments? Paul? I note the submission from the petitioner and the personal experience that she has had and that she has engaged with ministers and parliamentarians on the issue. If she has not been satisfied with that, there is a valid basis in which to invite further submissions. Perhaps we could write to the relevant charities that deal with it. There may be as the Scottish Diabetes Group or the National Adviser Group. There may be as relevant charities that we can reach out to request. If they are satisfied with the measures that the Scottish Government has taken to establish whether there is a wider impetus for improvement, the Scottish Government has indicated that it has a relevant strategy in place in terms of women's health and diabetic health. Whether that has been peer reviewed and whether there is further concerns, it is worthwhile to establish whether that is the case. Colleagues, do you have any further comments? With Paul's recommendations, are we happy to keep the petition open and write to the relevant stakeholders? Our final petition this morning is petition 1921. The Scottish Government must confirm that it will not introduce voter ID and devolved elections, which has been lodged by Maddie Dehesse on behalf of the hands of our vote. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to confirm that it will not introduce voter ID and devolved local elections in Scotland and to communicate that to the Scottish voters. In its submission, the Scottish Government confirms that it has no plans to introduce voter ID and devolved elections. It notes that, in contrast to the UK Government's election bill, it is currently at the second reading in the House of Lords. The submission explains that the UK bill will require voters to show an improved, former photographic identification before collecting their ballot paper to vote in the UK Parliament general elections in Great Britain. Local elections in England and police and crime commission are elections in England and Wales. The Scottish Government is also aware of the concerns regarding confusion in the event of a UK poll occurring on the same day as a Scottish poll with different identification requirements for each contest. It also notes that additional responsibility will be placed on presiding officers in each polling station to place the ID requirement. Do any members have any comments? We have already had the Parliament make a decision on this. It was not a unanimous decision by the Parliament but it was a majority decision that indicated that there will be no voter ID. In doing that, I think that we should be closing this petition at this stage because the Scottish Government has made it abundantly clear that there will be no voter ID. However, I do think that in closing the petition under 15.7 standing orders, it would be important for us to write in just in case there is the confusion that may occur if elections for the UK and for the Scottish appear on the same day. I know that that is potentially unlikely, but in the event that that could happen, I think that it would be useful to get a view on that. However, I do think that the decision has been made and it will not take place. In doing that, we can close the petition. Any other members have comments? If the committee has agreed, we will close the petition under 15.7 standing orders. I agree to that. The petition in 1906 on the M8 would the committee agree to delegate responsibility for signing off the number of stakeholders to the convener? That concludes our meeting in public this morning. The committee's next meeting will take place on Wednesday the 9th of March. The meeting will now move into private session to discuss our final agenda item.