Chamber and committees

Amendment 16 seeks to establish a compensation scheme or schemes to make some financial redress to people who will be pardoned under the bill when it becomes an act. It has been suggested to me that the scheme could cover people who were arrested and not charged, those who were arrested, charged and convicted, and those who were arrested, charged, convicted and dismissed.

Of course, the bill as it stands refers to those people who were convicted being pardoned. The Scott review points out that the best estimate that we have is that, between March 1984 and March 1985, 1,400 miners were arrested and around 500 miners were convicted, and we know that 206 miners were sacked as a result of those convictions.

Because of the passage of time, some of those affected are now deceased, which is why amendment 16 proposes that a legal representative or executor—maybe a next of kin—should be eligible for financial redress under a compensation scheme or schemes. The truth is that many of those who have died, died without a will, which is why there are issues around the need for legal representation.

Amendment 16 also calls for the rules of a scheme to be laid before the Parliament. I want to go back to why I think that that is important and remind people why we are here considering this proposed legislation. Today is 10 May, and on this day in 1984, 290 miners—eight coachloads—were stopped on the A80 at Stepps by Strathclyde Police. They were charged under sections 17 and 41 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 and with breach of the peace, and they were then fingerprinted, photographed and held in police custody. That is a salutary reminder that many of those held in police stations across Glasgow had never set foot in a police station before, never mind been incarcerated in a cell, and many of them never set foot in a police station afterwards. That was an extraordinary event and an extraordinary act by Strathclyde Police.

Many of us have heard the harrowing story of Doddie McShane, who took the rap for a broken window—a crime that he did not commit—and as a result lost his job. However, more than that, the late Doddie’s son, James, has testified about visiting his father in jail in Saughton as a result of the charge. He has movingly told us that his father was in jail sharing a cell with someone who was in there for armed robbery and someone who was in there for attempted murder. The family and friends of Doddie McShane are with us this morning.

Also with us is Jim Tierney, who was on one of those buses in Stepps 38 years ago today. He later spent 26 days and nights in Barlinnie and was sacked and blacklisted.

The Scott report, which is the genesis of the bill, points out:

“what sets these cases apart in our view is the disproportionality of cumulative impacts caused by dismissal following on from dealings with some aspect of the justice systems, especially convictions.”

The report goes on to say:

“No one has suggested to us that dismissal was an appropriate, reasonable or measured response to what were commonly relatively minor acts of public disorder punished by modest financial penalties imposed by a court.”

At the weekend, Mick McGahey’s son, who was himself a striking miner who was arrested repeatedly and sacked, said:

“The miners and their families, the women and children who bore the brunt of what happened, had their future stolen from them. It’s only right they are compensated for that. What was done to those men was one of the worst injustices in Scottish history.”

Members of the committee and other members of the Scottish Parliament will have received a communication from the National Union of Mineworkers. The cabinet secretary referred to the discussions and constructive dialogue that he has had with the NUM. This is what the NUM is saying about a compensation scheme. A letter from Nicky Wilson, the national president of the National Union of Mineworkers, says in plain terms:

“The NUM wants to see compensation paid to miners across the UK. We believe that this bill provides a historic opportunity for Scotland to lead the way by including a compensation scheme for those miners, and we will continue to advocate for a public inquiry.”

He goes on:

“Time is of the essence. Many miners have passed away and time is running out for others who were convicted. We understand the Scottish Government wishes to pass the bill to enact the pardon and is concerned that including a compensation scheme may delay this, but the pandemic has demonstrated the speed with which legislation can be enacted when the issue is afforded priority. We believe this is the time for priority to be given to these historic wrongs, including a clause in the legislation in support of the establishment of a compensation scheme, which would cause no delay and indicate the Government’s intention to act in this area.”

At the end of the cabinet secretary’s opening remarks in moving that the general principles of the bill be agreed to at stage 1, he said:

“as a society, we want to pardon those convictions. In that way, we are recognising the hardship and suffering of entire communities and bringing some comfort and reconciliation to the many who were involved.”—[Official Report, 31 March 2022; c 87.]

Recognising the hardship and suffering demands action and not just a symbolic pardon, so I ask the cabinet secretary to come forward with a financial resolution in time for the stage 3 debate on the bill. He knows, and members of the committee know, that it is only he who can do that, so I call on him this morning, in front of the committee, to give an undertaking that he will do that, and that he will work with the National Union of Mineworkers and others to make sure that Parliament gets a vote on what is seen by many as a glaring omission from this important piece of legislation.

I thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to speak to amendment 17, and I welcome those who have joined us in the public gallery. We are, in the end, a people’s Parliament, and we need to listen to and reflect the views of the people who send us here.

Amendment 17 seeks to add to those pardoned, miners who were convicted of an offence under section 7 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875. The date reminds us that that law is quite archaic; it is a law from Victorian times that goes back to the days when the Prime Minister was Benjamin Disraeli. It was introduced following a gas workers’ strike in 1872 and, at the time, its intent was to remove the criminal law and the crime of conspiracy from employment relations.

However, the truth of the matter is that the act was very, very rarely used in the 20th century. One of the most notorious occasions of its use was in connection with the Shrewsbury pickets in 1973; the people involved included Des Warren and Ricky Tomlinson, who, just last year, had their criminal convictions overturned in the Royal Courts of Justice. That is one reason for many people thinking that the 1875 act is quite a discredited piece of legislation. Amendment 17, therefore, attempts to iron out a wrinkle in the legislation and to improve it.

However, I am quite clear that the amendment also tackles an inequality, an injustice and a form of discrimination that appears to have been at work, given that it was only miners who lived in the Strathclyde area who were convicted under the 1875 act. As the cabinet secretary has said, according to the best records that we have, 16 people were charged with the offence in Strathclyde, and the maximum fine that was received was £50. That suggests that the activity did not include the acts of violence that have been referred to. If the activities that the people charged under the 1875 act were involved in had taken place elsewhere—in Fife, Clackmannanshire or the Lothians—those people would have been convicted under breach of the peace, and they will therefore be granted pardons as a result of the bill. The 1875 act covers public offences in the same way that breach of the peace does. It is a statutory form of breach of the peace, and it is equivalent.

Reference has been made to the language in the 1875 act. Section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 talks about the police being given the right to disperse crowds if there is

“intimidation of others with a view to compelling them not to do an act they have a right to do, or to do an act they have a right not to do”.

The word “compelling” is contained in both acts. My concern is that those in Strathclyde who were charged under one act will not be covered by the pardon, while those charged under an equivalent act in another part of Scotland will be. In difficult circumstances—after all, the bill relates to events that happened 37 or 38 years ago—we are all attempting to ensure that the bill is the best that we can make it.

I am clear that amendment 17 needs to be incorporated into the bill, because, in my view, it would be irrational and unjust not to include it.

Good morning and welcome to the 13th meeting—I hope that that is not an ominous sign—in 2022 of the Public Audit Committee.

Agenda item 1 is a decision on taking business in private. Do members agree to take items 4, 5 and 6 in private?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you for that opening statement, Mr Robertson. It sets the scene very well for the questions that we have. I intend to direct my questions to Pam Dudek as chief executive and, therefore, accountable officer, but she might in turn refer them to Mr Garden or you.

You touched on NHS Highland’s financial position, which was one of the reasons for the section 22 report being required in the first place. I think that there were three consecutive years in which the in-year financial balance was in the red. In your opening statement, you highlighted the extent to which savings are required; from my reading of the Audit Scotland report, those savings are of the order of £32.9 million.

My opening question is about the progress that has been made. Where are things now financially with NHS Highland? Do you consider the board to be on course to make the cost improvements and savings that were identified, and how have things been affected by Covid? I will come to Pam Dudek, first.

The next questions are from Willie Coffey. Willie, over to you.

Thank you very much indeed. Willie Coffey has a number of questions to put.

Are you saying that that critical piece of evidence does not cover in full the ministerial decision to mitigate the risk?

I turn straight away to the deputy convener, Sharon Dowey.

In relation to the contract arrangements after nationalisation, you highlight in paragraph 105 of the report that there was quite a fundamental shift, with the contract changing from a fixed-price tender basis to a cost-plus basis. You say that the Scottish Government agreed to

“paying the additional vessel costs, regardless of the final price.”

Do you have a view on that decision?

On a point that is related to that, a couple of paragraphs later on in the report, at paragraph 108, you inform us that CMAL, which is the purchaser, also became the technical consultant. Does that not blur the lines and even, potentially, represent a conflict of interest?