Chamber and committees

First, I mentioned the additional financing that is being provided to the SPA. That involves both a series of tranches of additional funds in terms of resources and additional capital expenditure. It is true, of course, that the estimates for how many cases there are likely to be were formulated by Police Scotland, the SPA and the Crown Office—people who are much more expert in this than me. I cannot do an estimate of how many cases there are likely to be. It is also true that the police, the SPA and the Crown Office will say that it has been an underestimate—there have been nearly double the number of tests done and people coming forward with positive tests. Those organisations are the experts; they do that. They are also independent—I do not know whether Russell Findlay accepts that fact. We will do the two things that are required of us. The first was to bring forward the legislative tools that they need to do that and to make Scotland a safer place, which they have done.

This is of course a serious error; the SPA has said that. It has a full meeting on Thursday to go over it in more detail. It has had the legislative tools to allow the police to make these stops and get people tested for drugs, which has made Scotland’s roads safer. However, they have to correct this, so we have also seen the commitment from the SPA to get HMICS to investigate what more can be done to make sure that this can be fixed now and into the future. That is the right thing to do.

In terms of the resources, the budget cut that Mr Findlay should have mentioned is the 5.2 per cent budget cut that we have had from his colleagues, the Tories at Westminster. Last year, the police had their resources budget protected and I am pretty sure that there were no amendments from the Tories seeking further budget for the police. We will see what happens this year.

Overall, £1.9 million has been provided to the SPA since 2018-19 to assist it in delivering testing for the offence. That funding has been in addition to the core budget that the SPA has received to ensure the delivery of policing in Scotland.

The new offence required new forensic testing machines to be purchased by the SPA, and we provided capital funding totalling £572,000 for the machines. We have also provided more than £1.3 million in resource funding for outsourcing through three tranches of funding, including the £370,000 that I agreed to issue earlier this month.

I am not sure that there is a question for me to answer there, but I—of course—regret any instance where the opportunity to prosecute a case of drug driving has been lost as a result of the issues that have arisen with SPA forensics.

The whole point is to build on success, which is undoubtedly there, because more than 5,000 people have been stopped who would not have been stopped under the previous legislation. We want to ensure that every case that needs to be prosecuted is prosecuted.

This is not passing the buck, but the SPA, Police Scotland and the Crown Office are independent—I know that the Tories have a hard time getting their heads around that—and we want to ensure that they have all the tools that are necessary to prosecute every case that they have to.

I was first notified of potential capacity issues last year and, in October last year, I authorised urgent additional funding of £325,000. In late April this year, the Government was alerted to a significant number of cases that had not been processed in time for the Crown to take further action. I instructed my officials to urgently work with the Scottish Police Authority, Police Scotland and the Crown to assess the scale of the issue and determine what immediate and longer-term mitigations were needed. Further exceptional funding of £370,000 was released earlier this month and I fully support a commission from the SPA for Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland to undertake a formal review.

I note Russell Findlay’s point about incompetence. I do not have the full details of the three cases that he mentioned because that information is held by the Crown Office, but I know that, in one of the cases—and possibly the other two—the injury was self-inflicted and did not involve a collision with another vehicle. I am happy to provide more information about the figures—it has taken some time to get the definitive figures that I have already stated—as and when we get that from the SPA and the Crown Office. They are the only ones who will have information on the stage of the prosecution process that they are at, for reasons that I am sure that Russell Findlay is aware of. As I said, I am happy to provide that information when it comes forward.

There is no creative accounting: there has been a 5.2 per cent cut to this Government’s budget. However, despite that happening, we protected the police resource budget last year. In fact, in the past two or three years, we have given more to the police than was even asked for by the Conservatives, and we have more police officers per capita in this country and they are paid a higher salary than police officers in the rest of the UK.

The initial intention was to have an in-house service. I should have mentioned that part of the problem is that the in-house lab that Police Scotland uses suffered a flooding incident during the course of the pandemic, which has caused problems. The outsourcing that took place was in deliberate response to that, to ensure that we had the capacity in relation to that. Part of the investigation by HMICS and the work that we will do with the SPA will be to ensure that we plot out the way forward. The main objective will be to drive out the risk that such things happen again in the future.

As for Katy Clark’s question on other crimes, that is for the procurator fiscal’s office to answer.

I will, in a second or two.

We cannot take that joint approach, given that Richard Leonard thinks that it is not worth making representations to the United Kingdom Government. We do. We will persist with that on our own, or with anyone else who is willing to do it, in the hope that we can achieve further justice for our miners.

I have mentioned the work that we have done through the initiatives that we have funded for the police for this year, which we are considering funding again for next year. Willie Rennie will know that officers also have access to Police Scotland’s 24/7 employee assistance programme—the EAP—and the trauma risk management programme.

We are not saying that everything that can be done is being done—as Calum Steele would argue, we should continually look to improve the services that we provide, and we recognise the special pressures that Covid has presented for the police. The police have done a fantastic job throughout the Covid period, and we want to continue to support them. We are not saying that we have done all that can be done—that is the responsibility of the employer, Police Scotland, with a role for the SPA. However we will continue to help them wherever we can to protect the wellbeing of our officers.

The debate has provided a final opportunity to discuss what I think is an important piece of legislation, and I am grateful to all the members who have contributed. Can I be the first person to say that I am, in fact, older than Pam Duncan-Glancy?

As I said in my opening remarks, the bill has enjoyed strong cross-party support from the start. That was to be expected, given the connection to the former coal mining industry that many members have, which the communities that we represent continue to hold close to their hearts. I am encouraged that the Parliament’s endorsement of the bill—if that is what happens—has been reflected to a large extent in today’s debate, and I hope that that endorsement will be crystallised in the bill being passed unanimously at decision time.

The debate has covered a broad range of familiar and fundamental questions relating to the scope of the pardon and the bill; how to maximise awareness of the pardon once it comes into effect; what can be done now to support former mining communities; and what can be done collectively to press the UK Government to consider undertaking a full, UK-wide inquiry into the events of the strike.

I should explain that I never asked for or demanded consensus, although I certainly hoped for it. My point was simply that it is not possible to mock a set of people because they want to make representations to a Government and then say that you want to do the same thing—not with any credibility, at least.

I have listened carefully, and I welcome the opportunity to address some of the points that have been made and to close today’s debate on what is a landmark bill. It is true that the divisions run very deep. I was talking to a Scottish Government employee recently, who was raised in the mining community that Christine Grahame represents. He said that one of his father’s friends had never spoken to his son since the miners strike. If they saw each other in the street, they would cross the road to avoid each other. That gives some idea of the impact of the strike. For those of us who were around at the time to witness it, it was visceral. It was a horrible situation for the people who were there. That is what it was like for those of us who observed it, so we can only imagine what it was like for the miners and their families.

That is why we have tried to keep the focus of the bill on reconciliation. I have always said that the challenge for the Parliament has been to refine the detail of the bill in ways that enhance the aim of reconciliation without diluting its main purpose, which is to remove the stigma of convictions. It is worth remembering that some of these people had never had a conviction in their lives before and have not had one since. Therefore, it is a badge of shame that we are seeking to lift today in order to restore dignity and to heal the long-standing wounds in our former mining communities.

I believe that the bill, as amended at stage 3, which Parliament will shortly be asked to pass, meets that challenge. I have welcomed the constructive elements of the debate on the bill. I recognise that, even when we might not entirely agree with each other on certain points, those views are well intentioned, and I do not want to accuse others of acting in bad faith. I believe that, primarily, we all have the interests of former miners and mining communities in mind.

Alex Rowley captured the idea and the purpose behind this, which is that we might not be able to force consensus but, sometimes, consensus and unanimity send an extremely strong message. I therefore endorse his comments. There was a very powerful speech from Maggie Chapman as well.

Alex Rowley mentioned former member Neil Findlay. I would also mention the former justice secretaries who took on the early parts of the bill—I think that both Michael Matheson and Humza Yousaf were involved in that—as well as the other former members, the former miners and others who gave evidence to the committee.

On the pardon criteria, the bill as introduced went further than the parameters that were set by John Scott’s review group. Following parliamentary scrutiny, the bill now goes even further by making the pardon available to more people and for additional offences. I hope that it is recognised that, where some members still believe that there may be gaps or omissions in the bill, that is due to our having to work within the powers afforded to this Parliament and the need to focus on the key purpose, the key outcomes and the key people we wanted to focus on.

If the Parliament is content to approve the bill, I am committed to working as best I can with parliamentarians across the chamber and at Westminster, and colleagues in other UK jurisdictions, to ensure that the impact and the legacy of the strike are not forgotten and to ensure that pressure is applied to give former miners and communities across the UK an inquiry that will provide the truth and the answers that they require to be able to fully move on.

We will also press for compensation to be paid to miners who lost out on thousands of pounds, having lost their rights to redundancy and pension payments following dismissal for participating in the strike. I previously mentioned the practice of blacklisting, which blighted many families.

However, for now, the bill has the primary theme of reconciliation running through its veins. With that in mind, we should acknowledge the miners and other individuals who fought passionately for their livelihoods and communities and who took action, which they believed was the right thing to do for their families and communities.

I also want to take a moment to acknowledge the police officers who were caught up in the strike, many of whom, like the former miners, are now retired or, sadly, no longer with us. In most circumstances, they were doing their jobs very bravely in hugely difficult circumstances, to uphold the law in the communities that they represented.

The bill is important, and it has allowed Scotland to lead the way in acknowledging the wounds that were inflicted by the strike and its legacy, which have been endured for too long in mining communities. Pam Duncan-Glancy mentioned that the Government should be aware of the sorry state of affairs that the bill brings us to, yet I do not see it in that way. The Scottish Parliament will be the first Parliament in the UK to pass a pardon for miners. We will be the first Government to bring that proposal to a Parliament, and I hope that we will be the first Parliament to vote unanimously for a pardon. I do not think that that is a sorry state of affairs. I concede that it is not finished business, but it is not a sorry state of affairs. I think that the bill is a real achievement.

The bill also allows Scotland to lead the way in taking action to remove the stigma of convictions resulting from the strike and to restore and provide dignity to former miners and their families. It is a collective pardon that applies both posthumously and to those who are living. It symbolises our country’s desire for truth and reconciliation, following the decades of hurt, anger and misconceptions that were generated by one of the most bitter and divisive industrial disputes in living memory.

In the spirit of reconciliation, the pardon recognises the exceptional circumstances that gave rise to the former miners suffering hardship and the loss of their good name through their participation in the strike. That is what really matters to me, and I hope that that is what matters to the Parliament. I therefore urge the Parliament to support the bill and to work collectively, following the bill’s passing, to promote the further outcomes that we know mining communities, miners and the former miners who are in the chamber want to see.

I commend the motion to Parliament.

Like Richard Leonard, I welcome those in the public gallery who are former miners and their representatives. As Alex Rowley has just said, this could be an extremely important and historic day for Scotland if we can pass the bill. I hope that we are able to pass it with one voice. We are all here to support justice—that is the whole purpose behind the bill.

As members may be aware, I did not support the amendment that Pam Duncan-Glancy lodged at stage 2 that sought to replace the reference to “supporting or opposing”, which was proposed by me, with a broader reference to “relating to” the strike. The matter was debated in committee, with the outcome that the reference to “supporting or opposing” was added to the bill at stage 2. Her amendment 3 brings the matter to the chamber for debate.

I have again listened carefully to Ms Duncan-Glancy’s explanation of why the form of wording in amendment 3 is preferable to what was supported in the committee and is now included in the bill. I note the member’s point about the bill covering only those who were in support of the strike, but I have discussed that very issue with the president of the National Union of Mineworkers, who is here today, and the union is perfectly comfortable with the new formulation.

A consequence of moving away from exclusively covering pickets, demonstrations and similar gatherings to covering disturbances in the community, as we did at stage 2, is that we need to recognise that people on both sides of the strike could have relevant convictions, remembering that the bill is about reconciliation. I therefore remain concerned that the broader wording that the member suggests is rather vague and might create uncertainty. In turn, that uncertainty could make it harder for people to self-assess whether they qualify for the pardon.

The current reference to “supporting or opposing” makes clear the purpose of the activity that a person was engaged in, participating in or responding to during the miners strike, and personal matters are expressly excluded. I say to all members that, if we are going to have any real attempt at reconciliation, somebody who was against the strike also has to be covered for the same behaviours as those who were for it. As I say, I have discussed the matter with the NUM and, as I understand it, that formulation presents the union with no issues. On that basis, I cannot support amendment 3 and would urge other members to vote against it if Ms Duncan-Glancy presses her amendment.

I turn to Richard Leonard’s amendment 6. Members may be aware that the committee had a cordial and constructive debate on the matter at stage 2. The limited data that was available suggested that, as has been mentioned, there were 16 convictions related to the strike under section 7 of the Conspiracy, and Protection of Property Act 1875, all of which took place in the Strathclyde region. Anecdotal evidence was put forward that similar conduct would have been prosecuted as a breach of the peace in other parts of Scotland. The offence, on conviction, carried a maximum fine of £50 or three months’ imprisonment. There is no evidence that anyone was imprisoned as a result of the convictions.

The conduct that led to such convictions, even if a degree of violence was involved, could therefore be considered to be on the lower end of the scale and similar to conduct that was charged elsewhere as a breach of the peace. I was, therefore, sympathetic to calls for the offences to be included in the bill and had agreed to discuss that further with Richard Leonard ahead of stage 3.

We have, however, subsequently discovered—I have discussed this with Mr Leonard and with Nicky Wilson of the NUM—that the behaviour that was covered by the offence in section 7 of the 1875 act is now covered by an offence in section 241 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. That means that the criminalisation of that behaviour forms part of the subject matter of the 1992 act, which, in turn, falls within the reservation of

“Employment rights and duties and industrial relations”

under the Scotland Act 1998. If that offence was to be added to the list of qualifying offences, we would make the bill vulnerable to a challenge—and not just a theoretical challenge—on the basis of its legislative competence. If that happened, it could risk delaying the bill’s commencement and the coming into force of the pardon for everyone affected. I am relatively confident that no member would wish to see that outcome, given that the bill will commence the day after royal assent if it is passed later today. However, I realise that that will be disappointing for those who support a more comprehensive pardon.

I have already informed Mr Leonard that I will explore whether the offence can be added to the legislation later, through a section 104 order under the Scotland Act 1998. However, that would require the consent of the United Kingdom Government to progress an order through the UK Parliament on our behalf. Therefore, matters that touch on compensation, which we will come to shortly, and on the Conspiracy, and Protection of Property Act 1875 constitutionally fall to the UK Government.

That does not mean that nothing can be done, but I feel that a more persuasive case could be made on both of those matters if we could come up with a common approach with the UK Government. I have already written to UK Government ministers, and I hope to meet them to discuss those matters. However, for the purpose of the debate, I am unfortunately unable to support amendment 6, and I urge other members to vote against it if the member elects to move it.