Chamber and committees

Thank you. Gavin Smith, do you want to come in on that?

My next question is directed to Nicky Brown and Jim McBride. In the longer term, the Scottish Government plans to introduce a new statutory prevention duty. How do you envisage that impacting on demand for temporary accommodation?

What is Social Security Scotland doing to ensure that all client-facing staff know how to refer clients with disabilities to VoiceAbility advocacy services?

Thank you.

I would like to ask one question, if that is okay.

Lord Advocate, I completely understand that I am asking you to speculate on this. You have already indicated that you believe that the current proposals would be likely to make it more difficult to get convictions. In your view, what would be the likely impact on convictions if the not proven verdict was simply abolished without any changes to the size of juries or verdict majorities? I appreciate that I am asking you to speculate.

The Scottish Government has committed to prison replacement at Inverness and Glasgow but not Greenock. I know that the cabinet secretary has visited Greenock and is aware of what His Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons has said about cells there being not suitable for human habitation. Will she provide an update on what work is being done and what consideration is being given to an allocation within the capital budget?

I congratulate my colleague Richard Leonard on securing this debate, and I speak in favour of the motion.

As for many others, my main recollection of Mick McGahey is from the 1984-85 miners strike and the many interventions, rallies and meetings that he spoke at. This year is, of course, the 40th anniversary of the commencement of that strike. I hope that, later this year, the Parliament will again consider the impact that that dispute had on Scotland, because there are many lessons that those who wish to see the empowerment of working-class communities can learn from it. The dispute shows us again the need for unity and solidarity. The miners and their families suffered terrible financial hardship during it. They did so because they understood the significance of the dispute for their communities and for future generations. I believe that history has proved that they were correct.

Mick McGahey was, of course, a significant trade unionist and working-class leader in Scotland over many decades. Like his father, Jimmy, he was a Lanarkshire miner and a member of the Communist Party. He worked in the pits from the age of 14 and, by the age of 18, he was already chair of his NUM branch. He was an active member of his union throughout his life. Mick McGahey’s family’s story of being blacklisted and having to move for work is shared by many families. As a trade unionist, most of his time was spent on the fight for pay, health and safety measures—and, indeed, compensation for those who were injured.

He gained prominence in the 1972 and 1974 miners strikes. Much like we see today—indeed, we have seen this since the creation of the trade union movement—and as Rona Mackay has said, he and other trade union leaders were painted as monsters by the press and by their political opponents. Prime Minister Edward Heath, in his 1974 election campaign, singled Mick McGahey out as being a leader of a small group of unelected communists who wanted to run Britain. The 1974 strike, of course, ended with a 35 per cent pay increase for miners.

The timing of the 1984-85 strike was not decided by the miners but by the then Conservative Government, which had a vision of closing the pits and smashing the miners’ union and the organised working class. As was said repeatedly during that dispute, if you close a pit, you kill a community. The experience of working-class communities is that, when there are closures, the jobs are not replaced. Even now, communities across Scotland have not recovered from the defeat in the 1984-85 strike and the subsequent pit closures. As was also said at the time, if the miners were defeated, it would be more difficult for every struggle and dispute that came afterwards.

The motion today seeks to recognise Mick McGahey with a bust in the Parliament. When Mick McGahey died, his ashes were placed beneath the grounds of this Parliament. He fought for this Parliament and for a working-class Parliament, and I believe that it would be fitting to have a commemoration of his life in the building.

The committee will want to continue to scrutinise the new benefits. So, if the cabinet secretary will keep the committee advised, that will be much appreciated.

Cabinet secretary, why is the programme budget increasing when the programme business case suggested that it would be falling by this stage? Is the programme still expected to finish at the end of 2025, as is stated in the business case?

The cabinet secretary may be able to keep the committee advised on that. Does her colleague want to add anything?