Chamber and committees

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.

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.

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.

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.