I am grateful for the opportunity to open the stage 3 debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives.

First, I thank everyone who has been involved in allowing the bill to reach this stage, including the many witnesses, committee clerks and members who have worked constructively to improve the bill since its introduction. Every time the Parliament debates a bill that is taking its final step through Parliament, that provides the opportunity to reflect on the importance of what the bill seeks to achieve.

This bill is no different. I have spoken previously about the symbolic importance of the bill to those who were affected by the miners strike of 1984-85. That importance has been clear to see from the beginning of the bill’s journey through Parliament—from the scale of the public response to the independent review, to the heartfelt witness testimonies that I heard as a member of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, through to the presence of all those who have attended Parliament for each stage of the bill’s proceedings. It is clear how much closure the bill stands to bring to those people, which is why we will support the bill at decision time today.

The scars of the turbulent events of 1984 and 1985 have stayed with many individuals, and even whole communities, right up to the present day. The bill will not right every wrong of the past—no bill by itself ever could—but the pardon that the bill seeks to provide will mean a great deal to many individuals and communities and will go some way towards healing the divisions of the past.

However, as with most legislation, the bill as introduced required improvements in order that it could fully achieve its stated intentions. There were concerns that the bill lacked clarity in certain places, which could have created ambiguity around eligibility for pardon. That is particularly problematic for a bill that requires people to self-assess their eligibility for pardon. I was, therefore, pleased to support the cabinet secretary’s significant redrafting of section 1, which meant that many of my amendments were incorporated.

The scope of the pardon that will be afforded by the bill has been much debated throughout the bill’s passage through Parliament; we have heard that debate continuing in the chamber today. However, I remain of the view that, although it has been possible to justify small changes in the scope of the bill, it is not possible to justify significant expansions of its scope. We saw attempts to do that at stage 2, and we have seen them again today at stage 3. I have no doubt that the amendments along those lines were well motivated; however, although I will not spend my time today re-running every aspect of the debate, I note that it is clear to me that, as it stands, the bill goes far enough in that respect.

We have also heard calls for a compensation scheme to be introduced. We have been through that discussion and amendments on that have been dealt with. One of the most important features of the bill is that the pardon that it grants is automatic and self-assessed. It is important to the symbolism of the bill that those who are included in its scope are able to judge straight away that they have been pardoned. The delay and complexity that would come with a compensation scheme would risk undermining such simplicity. Ultimately, the argument that was set out in the committee’s stage 1 report remains clear. The introduction through the bill of a compensation scheme would not only have been impractical, but would have delayed the process, which we do not want.

John Scott QC’s independent review made it clear that there was injustice in some of the convictions that happened because of the miners strike. It is, therefore, only right that the bill provides a formal pardon for those who were caught up in those most difficult of circumstances. In passing the bill at decision time today, Parliament will formally acknowledge those injustices, which will go some way towards healing the communities that were scarred by the events, although it has taken four decades for us to get to this stage.

Although the bill will not undo those injustices, I hope that it will, at least, bring the closure that many communities and individuals deserve.

Amendments 7 and 8, in the name of Richard Leonard, revisit the compensation scheme that was brought forward at stage 2 and rejected on the ground that introducing a compensation scheme is not the purpose of the bill and that it would only delay the bill’s implementation. We do not wish to see the implementation delayed, so we are minded not to support the amendments.

Group 2 deals with qualifying individuals, who are defined in section 1A. The term “qualifying individual” means an individual who was a miner or who

“was, at the time of the commission of the offence, a member of the same household as a miner.”

A qualifying individual includes a deceased individual. Therefore, a pardon will apply posthumously as well as to the living. Amendments 1, 4, 5, 9 and 2 seek to extend the scope of the bill so that it incorporates a wider range of individuals. We believe that, in doing so, they go too far. Therefore, we will not support any of the amendments in this group.

I am delighted to speak in support of one of the amendments in the group. The two amendments relate to “qualifying conduct”, which applies to the conduct that occurred during the 1984-85 miners strike.

Amendment 3, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, would leave out “supporting or opposing” and insert “relating to” in section 1. The amendment provides slightly improved drafting for section 1, and we are happy to support the amendment.

Amendment 6, in the name of Richard Leonard, wishes to extend the scope of the bill. It already covers “breach of the peace”, “breach of bail conditions” and

“an offence under section 4(1)(a) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967”.

We believe that the proposal to incorporate the Conspiracy, and Protection of Property Act 1875 would extend the scope of the bill too widely, as covering those penalties and provisions aimed at the avoidance of violence seems unnecessary. We will not support amendment 6 in the name of Richard Leonard.

To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to support the mental health and wellbeing of officers and staff within Police Scotland. (S6O-01242)

Official statistics indicate that officers and staff within the force have missed over 77,000 days during 2021-22, and the Scottish Police Federation has stressed that levels of officers and staff are reaching a critical stage and that officers are leaving in droves. The Scottish National Party Government has handed Police Scotland a further real-terms budget cut of 8 per cent. What action is being taken to reverse that decline and to do all that we can to maintain, retain and support our police force?

I will move on to talk about the treatment of pre-application consultations, because that area creates some difficulty for individuals, organisations and communities. Is there any evidence that how wind farm developments are treated when it comes to the pre-application consideration is anything other than a tick-box exercise? That is the perception that some people have. What is the Scottish Government doing to improve such engagement?

Mr Ewing makes a very valid point with regard to how we should examine the issue. I also agree with David Torrance’s recommendation to write to the Deputy First Minister. The entire saga continues to unlock and show survivors and individuals across the care sector and support sector how they were dealt with in that entire area. We should examine the matter as much as we possibly can so that we can capture it.

As the convener identified, organisations and individuals are falling through the net, which is the last thing we want. We want to encapsulate as much information as we can so that we bring together the broadest range of views and opinions. We will achieve some of that through the suggestions of Fergus Ewing and David Torrance; I am therefore very supportive of those proposals.

In the report, there is the idea of creating a unit with responsibility for participation. Has the Government done any costings of the implementation of the report’s recommendations, including in relation to the proposed new unit? It is important to ensure that the recommendations can be effectively managed, and that can happen only if there are resources and proposals to support that unit and make it a reality.

I would certainly agree with all that.

We have seen in all the petitions the dilemmas that communities face, even with the technological advances that we have seen in medicine and the opportunities that can be dealt in relation to urban areas and rural areas, but that does not seem to be working in many communities. A more in-depth look by the health committee might well bring to the fore areas that have been addressed and concerns that have been raised by petitioners.

The communities have not received the continued support that is vitally important for their livelihoods in relation to any medical process. The health committee could do a much more in-depth analysis of some of the areas that have been brought to our attention, which might help to unravel the issues and to support the petitioners.