Chamber and committees

Had Alexander Stewart done his homework, he would have found out that the reason for the reduction in police force numbers is to do with the 26th UN climate change conference of the parties—COP26—and with Covid, both of which have limited the police’s ability to undertake training of new officers at Tulliallan, because it was being used for other purposes. The police will tell him that.

Alexander Stewart asked what else we are doing. We are going to pay our police officers more than the Tories pay the police officers whom they have control over; we are going to have more police officers per head of population than there are in England and Wales; and we are going to oppose the Tories’ imposition of a 5.2 per cent cut in our budget this year, which limits how much we can do.

We are doing the things that help police officers—unlike the Tories, who have undermined and underresourced the police in England and Wales.

This is perhaps the most substantial of the amendments and, unfortunately, it is also the most contentious and divisive. I had hoped that we would be able to reach a common position so that we could move forward on achieving what we all want. I regret that that has not been possible.

The Scott inquiry did not propose a compensation scheme, for very good—

Will the member give way?

I will just repeat the point: the Scott inquiry, which had broad support within this Parliament, did not recommend a compensation scheme as part of the bill. That was partly because the inquiry team wanted this to be an act of reconciliation in communities that were riven apart by the miners strike.

I heard mention of the Scottish procurators fiscal and the Scottish police. It was the National Coal Board. It was industrial relations and employment law, which are reserved to Westminster. I have heard members saying that it was the political direction of the strike—how are we to examine that and apportion blame for it? The records are held at Westminster.

The game was given away by Alex Rowley when he said that it was the British state that was responsible. That is the point. We do not disagree on the principle of compensation—we have said that from the start. It is about how it can be best achieved. I do not know what amendment Alex Rowley was talking to, because no compensation scheme is proposed in Richard Leonard’s amendments—there is no compensation scheme proposed. It is worth bearing that in mind when we come to the vote.

Amendment 7 removes section 3(b) of the bill, which provides that section 1—which is the pardon—does not

“give rise to any right, entitlement or liability”.

It seeks to strike down that provision.

Amendment 8 seeks to place a duty on the Scottish ministers to carry out a review of the options for compensating those individuals subject to the pardon, or the legal representatives of such individuals, which I assume refers to individuals who may have died, with their representatives now taking on that case.

The amendment also seeks to have us publish a report on such a review, within 12 months of royal assent, setting out

“the estimated costs of those options, and recommendations on how best to achieve the aim of compensating for the harms suffered by those subject to the pardon.”

I have been consistent throughout the process: I have considered options for compensation and reviewed them; I have discussed the matter with officials, the committee and individual members. We have reviewed it, and we think that the bill is the best way to try to achieve that aim.

To repeat, amendment 8 does not create a right to compensation. What Richard Leonard proposes does not create that right. There is no need to remove section 3(b) of the bill. Removing that provision would imply that the Parliament does create a right, entitlement or liability, but it is uncertain what that would be, looking at the bill as it is drafted. All that amendment 8 seeks to do is to require a review; it does not create a right to compensation, now or in the future. I am concerned that amendment 7 would therefore create uncertainty, and I am not prepared to support it. I urge members to do likewise if Mr Leonard presses amendment 7.

I turn to amendment 8. As many members in the chamber will already know, my view is that it is for the UK Government to devise a scheme and make compensation payments to former miners and their families. Alex Rowley mentioned blacklisting, which we all know went on. The one attempt that there has been to try to deal with blacklisting was in the House of Commons, because it has the powers to do that. Maria Fyfe tried that in 1988. That is where the powers to address this lie.

I have a genuine fear about what Richard Leonard has proposed. Some of us are willing to pursue the route that we think is most productive, which is to put pressure on our political parties in Westminster in order to make sure that any future Government reviews compensation. I do not know whether Alex Rowley holds out hope that there will be a Labour Government at any time in the future, but if he assumes that the Tories will always be in power, then we are all doomed. It could be the case that we can try to propose a solution to our political parties and, as Christine Grahame said, to our colleagues in the Welsh Assembly. If we could do that, or if there is a change in the Government, or a change of heart in the Tory party—which I share Alex Rowley’s pessimism about—then we will be ready to go. We will have all the support. However, we will undermine that if we say that we are also looking to review a compensation scheme in Scotland. “We think that you should do that, but we are also going to review one in Scotland.” That is why I think that amendment 8 would work against the interests of those who are trying to seek compensation.

My view is that any compensation should, if it is to be taken forward, be properly thought out, uniform and fair, and should take into account the wishes of former miners across the UK. A previous iteration of Richard Leonard’s proposals would have had us provide a pardon for some people, but not for others. If people had lost their job, then they would have got compensation, but not if they have been pardoned, and vice versa. That would have created more division, when the bill is all about trying to seek some reconciliation.

I repeat that it is for the UK Government to devise a scheme and to make compensation payments to former miners and their families. That is why I continue to press for a UK inquiry. I am sorry that Richard Leonard will not take up the proposal that I made to him previously, which is that we should approach our own parties. Today, I spoke with a senior member of the Welsh Assembly, who also said that when they have had discussions in Plaid Cymru and the Labour Party, they have talked about compensation in the context of the £4.4 billion hoovered out of the miners pension fund. That is what they have talked about, and we should be getting them onside and making sure that we have the maximum possible impact on the Westminster Government.

I previously put on record, and I am happy to do so again, that the Scottish Government would be willing to consider and compile as much factual and other information as the NUM and other bodies may be able to offer—and they have offered to give us that information—as part of any future representation that is made to the UK Government. That offer is not just abstract; I have already written to the Home Secretary and to a number of other people in order to try to garner a level of support that ensures that we can exercise the maximum possible amount of pressure.

I also hope that Mr Leonard and all other members agree that it is important that we have—if we can still achieve it—consensus across the chamber for the bill at stage 3. A united front can strengthen our call for the UK Government to undertake the inquiry that it should be undertaking, and that miners and their families have been asking for for a long time. Division at this stage of the bill will weaken the cause. The lack of a consistent approach to compensation across the chamber may be questioned by those whom we seek to influence and undermine any collective action that we could take together at Holyrood and with our colleagues at Westminster.

However, for now, I have to speak to the amendment that is in hand. I believe that the inclusion of amendment 8 in the bill will distract attention and focus away from the campaign that we can all take forward collectively to the UK Government following the bill’s passage. Indeed, the Scottish ministers have already assessed the options for the payment of compensation, which I have set out.

Although the bill as drafted means that someone can assume a pardon if it is passed, amendment 8 would mean that they could not assume that and they would have to apply for compensation. Given the age of the miners involved, and the fact that many are no longer with us, we deliberately sought not to make that an onerous process for those who would be involved. Therefore, I will not support Richard Leonard’s amendment 8, and would urge members to do similar if the member wishes to move it.

I have, at the last minute, adapted what I intended to say. I had hoped that we would achieve the consensus that I think many people sought to achieve, but that has not been possible.

I will address one point at the outset. Richard Leonard accused me of saying “No—no—no”. The facts simply do not support that. I consistently made compromises with the committee and we went further from the very start, with the John Scott committee. I cannot escape the conclusion that it would not really have mattered what the Government did—we were always going to get that kind of grandstanding from Richard Leonard towards the end. That is unfortunate, because it means that we cannot have the joint approach that we had hoped to have—

I think that I made it clear, when I spoke, that I did not expect that the people in those offices in the UK Government that he has mentioned would remain the same for all time. I think that what I have set out is the most effective way to do it.

Richard Leonard, in talking about me making excuses, and raising the temperature and the division in this debate, is working against what I think we are all trying to achieve. I would ask him to think about his remarks before he makes them, if we are to have that consensus.

I assume that he thinks that it is not worth while to approach the UK Government at all—he will not do that. We will do that, regardless of whether he comes with us or not, and whether or not he speaks to his colleagues. I just hope that he will temper his remarks and try to support the greater good.

As Fulton MacGregor said, at stage 2, there was a constructive debate in committee on the scope of the qualifying individuals who would be eligible for the pardon. Throughout the process, it has been my approach to find compromise with the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee and other points of view. We went further than John Scott’s committee had proposed in trying to meet some of the concerns that members expressed.

As someone who was a trade union member for two decades and a branch officer and trade union official, I share Pam Duncan-Glancy’s view that people should be allowed, encouraged and supported to express solidarity with others who are in difficult circumstances. I would not quibble with that. I, too, was young—or younger—during the miners strike. As a student, I supported some of the activities that Richard Leonard talked about in relation to support funds for miners and so on.

At stage 2, amendments were agreed to that extended eligibility to individuals who, at the time of committing a qualifying offence, were members of the household of a miner. However, it was argued that eligibility should be extended to cover more family members. I was happy to keep an open mind on that. Fulton MacGregor’s amendments 1 and 2 seek to introduce a small extension to the definition of “qualifying individual” to cover the parents, siblings and children of a miner. I believe that broadening eligibility to those categories of close family members who—this is an important point—at the time of such an offence being committed may not have been a member of the same household as a miner will strengthen the bill without diluting its effect.

I recognise, of course, that there will always be uncertainty as to how many of the individuals who were convicted during the strike were a parent, a sibling or a child or even another member of a miner’s household. However, I feel that it is important that those who were immediately close to a miner, and were arguably more directly affected by the impact of the strike, are able to be pardoned, subject to meeting the qualifying criteria.

I am therefore happy to support amendments 1 and 2, which have been lodged by Mr MacGregor. I urge all members to do the same.

Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 4, linked with amendment 9, introduces a definition of what is meant by “another family member”. I know that the member wishes for the pardon to apply to a longer list of family members, some of whom might not have been immediately close to a miner. These matters were debated at stage 2, and I could not support the amendment that Ms Duncan-Glancy had lodged. I know that other committee members shared that view. I was pleased to be able to meet the member to discuss the matter afterwards. I recognise that she has refined the wording for stage 3, but my concerns remain.

As I indicated at stage 2, there is a risk that these amendments could have the unintended consequence of diluting the effect of the pardon for miners, for members of their households and, if the chamber were to agree to Mr MacGregor’s amendments, for the parents, siblings and children of a miner. They were arguably the people most likely to have been directly affected by the impact of the strike, because of the normally very close nature of such relationships.

For those reasons, I cannot support amendments 4 and 9. I urge other members to do likewise if the member decides to move them.

Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 5 seeks to extend the pardon to individuals who, at the time of the commission of a qualifying offence, were supporters, in either a professional or a personal capacity, of the miners strike. I have been open to refining the detail of the bill in ways that enhanced it without diluting its main purpose. I responded positively to the committee’s recommendations at stage 1 so that household members of a miner could be included. I am also willing to support a small extension to cover certain very close family members who may not always be captured by the definition of household member in the bill.

I recognise the intention behind amendment 5. I agree that solidarity and standing up collectively for the cause that a person believes in is right. The definition of supporter as proposed by the member would, however, seek to extend eligibility to a considerable number of other people for whom I believe the connection to being directly impacted by the strike is less certain. I believe that the intention behind amendment 5 could create an even greater risk: that the effect of the pardon is diluted for miners, as for the immediate members of their households and, if Fulton MacGregor’s amendments 1 and 2 are agreed to, for the parents, siblings and children of a miner who may have been convicted for actions that they took as a result of that impact.

I can only repeat the points that I have made. We have a genuine point of disagreement. I think that the effect of extending the definition so widely would be to have an impact on those miners who will be subject to the pardon; I genuinely believe that it would start to dilute its effect. That is why, on one hand, I have tried to hold to that view and, on the other, tried to compromise where I can, by extending the definition to household and family members. I acknowledge that the member is part of the genesis of the amendments that Fulton MacGregor has lodged, but I have to have an eye on how effective the pardon will be and how its effects will be felt by miners themselves. I think that extending the definition too widely will dilute that effect.

I therefore cannot agree to amendment 5, unfortunately. I say “unfortunately” because it would have been ideal if the chamber were able to agree on all these points. I hope that we will do so on creating the pardon itself. There is more work to be done if we are able to pass the bill. Doing so with a united front would be the most effective way.

The individuals who are mentioned in Fulton MacGregor’s amendments are arguably the most likely people to have been directly affected by the impact of the strike. The category of “supporter” in amendment 5 is quite vague. It is not clear from the amendment what actions, if any, would qualify an individual to be a supporter, or whether it would all be down to the motivation for committing the relevant offence. The danger of creating that ambiguity and doubt is that it would add to the likelihood of the effect of the pardon being diluted. The amendment would make self-assessment more difficult than for household members or close relatives.

I cannot support amendment 5 for the reasons that I have mentioned. I urge members not to support it if Pam Duncan-Glancy elects to move it.

The simple fact is that I have never asked for everyone to vote en bloc in every instance. I have tried to make a number of compromises in order that we can get maximum consensus, but that is obviously not going to happen.

I thank Joe FitzPatrick and the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee for their scrutiny of the bill. I also thank the bill team. I have never seen a bill team so engaged and involved. They are civil servants and they are neutral, but the advice that they gave me and how they went to work on investigating potential compensation avenues and various other aspects of the bill was tremendous, so I thank them for their support in that regard.

I am also grateful to Nicky Wilson, who is the president of the National Union of Mineworkers, and to the Retired Police Officers Association Scotland for the views that they offered to inform the bill. I was pleased that Parliament agreed to the bill’s general principles in March and, as I have said, I responded positively to the lead committee’s recommendations at stage 2.

Today, I want to focus on what can be achieved through the bill. Anyone who considers that they or their loved ones meet the pardon criteria should feel pardoned. It is a pardon to own for themselves or for their loved ones—many of whom have, sadly, not been able to see this day arrive.

The qualifying criteria are straightforward. If the conviction was for an offence of breach of the peace, breach of bail conditions, police obstruction et cetera, or theft that was connected to the strike, the pardon will apply automatically to miners and to those who lived in a miner’s household. We have added to those categories of people the categories that were included in Fulton MacGregor’s amendments 1 and 2.

In recognition of the difficulty in sourcing records, that means “no” to an application process but “yes” to a collective and automatic pardon. That outcome puts Scotland at the forefront in the UK in helping to remove the stigma of convictions relating to the strike, and in providing reconciliation and comfort to people who were affected.

I have the greatest respect for former miners and I have represented a mining community for many years. I was not raised in a mining community, but I supported the strike as a student when it happened in 1984. I know that the men concerned were the backbone of the coal industry and worked in dangerous, dirty and hard conditions to keep our homes warm and to keep the wheels of our economy turning.

They were a collective group of honest and hard-working men who were supported, in many cases, by their strong and resilient wives. Proud former miners including Nicky Wilson, Alex Bennett and Bob Young gave powerful evidence to the lead committee. I know that others, including Watty Watson, Jim Tierney and Willie Doolan, have been watching the bill’s progress. That is not to forget the thousands of other men who were on strike to safeguard the future of their industry and communities.

Perhaps one of the lasting effects of the strike was the extent to which the experience of watching the strike taking place radicalised young students like me. That is why the pardon is so important. It is a recognition of the suffering and the need to restore dignity to the affected communities.

At stage 2, we extended the scope of the bill to cover qualifying offences that took place more broadly in mining communities. We also added theft as a qualifying offence. I should mention that the three cases of theft were theft by three women, all in Ayrshire, who—as best the records can tell—were convicted for stealing potatoes because of the economic hardship of the strike. We extended the qualifying offences to cover them.

We also extended the list of qualifying individuals. It is fitting to recognise the support that immediate family members provided during the strike. As I said earlier, I am delighted to see former miners and their family members joining us today in the public gallery.

An outstanding issue remains around inclusion of offences under section 7 of the Conspiracy, and Protection of Property Act 1875. I committed to discussing that issue further with Richard Leonard, which I did. Having explored the matter, I confirm that although I had supported the inclusion of section 7 offences, Richard Leonard is aware of the reason for my not supporting that now. The subject matter of the offences has been superseded by successor legislation that is reserved to Westminster. Therefore, in order to add the offences, legislation would have to be progressed through the UK Parliament. I confirm that it is my intention to pursue the matter at Westminster through an order under section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998. I cannot guarantee that the UK Government will agree to promote the order, but we will use our best endeavours to secure that agreement.

I recognise that uncovering the truth of what happened during the strike is important. I agree that the UK Government should conduct a UK-wide inquiry that should consider management of the strike and payment of compensation. I entirely sympathise with people who lost out financially through their participation in the strike. Of course, it is not just that they lost their jobs: they lost pension benefits, and blacklisting blighted their future employment prospects and, in blighting their lives, blighted the lives of their families, too. That is why I say that the passing of the bill will not mark the end of the Scottish Government’s efforts on behalf of mining communities.

I have previously outlined on the record the reasons why the bill is not the mechanism to provide financial redress. I know that Richard Leonard and other members will disagree, but I believe that a united front—had we been able to achieve it at Holyrood and through our parties at Westminster—would have strengthened calls for an inquiry on that. As I said earlier this week, I have written to the Home Secretary to reinforce that point and to request a meeting.

For now, we must take the opportunity to acknowledge the circumstances that led to so many convictions in order that we can say that we, as a Parliament and as a country, want to pardon those convictions and bring some comfort and reconciliation to those who were involved.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Miners’ Strike (Pardons) (Scotland) Bill be passed.

It is essential that mental health and wellbeing support is provided to police officers and staff at the point of need, and I welcome the initiatives that are being undertaken by Police Scotland—the employer—to support its workforce.

The Scottish Government has provided funding to the Lifelines Scotland wellbeing programme, which provides tailored online resources for blue-light responders, volunteers and their family members. That includes the provision of £97,864 in this financial year. We are considering a proposal from Lifelines for further funding support in 2022-23.