Professor Phillips, some views and opinions have been expressed, and you have done quite a lot of research on the way in which people were treated when they were arrested and on the convictions that they received. Some people say that pardoning will give the impression that a bit of rewriting of history is taking place. There was a situation or circumstance, there was a judicial process and what was received was based on that criminal offence and conduct. Do you think that the judiciary was heavy-handed? It is obvious from what the miners have said this morning that they believe that there was collusion between the judiciary, the coal board and maybe others, such as the police, in how this was managed. It would be good to get your view on that, Professor Phillips, because you are an academic who has looked at some of that.

Thank you for being so frank and for imparting your knowledge and wisdom on where the bill could go if the committee and the Parliament do not consider all the aspects. As I say, on the surface, it comes across as what we would expect but, when we dig deeper, we find further elements and layers that need to be looked at to ensure that we get the parity that is required.

I, too, thank the witnesses for their comments so far. As I said to the miners from whom we heard earlier this morning, my perception, as a youngster in those days, was that the miners strike was a bitter and divisive dispute.

Tom Wood said that police officers, given their role, had no choice but to do what they did to support the community and that the intention was to manage peaceful picketing—that came across. However, the miners who gave evidence to us said that they thought that there was a change in the policing attitude when the approach went from being local in flavour to being more national. They thought that there was a change in mindset, as well as in policy and procedure, when that happened.

Did Tom Wood and Jim McBrierty see any of that or interpret what happened in that way? The miners said that policing started off reasonably when the strikers knew the officers who were working with them daily, weekly and monthly, but that that accord seemed to change when police officers from other areas came in, when there was more aggression and confrontation. Can you give us your views on that?

You identify the length of time of the strike. It went through different phases. As someone who only watched the event, I certainly saw different phases of it through the media and on television.

We all understand that the pardon is intended to remove stigma. That is the crux of where the bill is trying to go, but by pardoning what was seen as criminal conduct, is it not rewriting history? It would be good to get your take on that.

Clackmannanshire, in my region, has been the beneficiary of additional funding through the Scottish attainment challenge. Although Clackmannanshire will receive £1.3 million in additional attainment funds next year, the funding will be cut to less than £500,000 pounds by 2025-26. Does the cabinet secretary believe that the most effective way of improving the prospects of children in Clackmannanshire is to strip more than £800,000 of attainment funding from their schools?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the efforts being made to close the poverty-related attainment gap. (S6O-00576)

I am grateful for the opportunity to close the debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. Today we have heard many contributions about the importance of protecting and enhancing tenants’ rights, and I welcome the fact that we have had time to debate that.

All too often, the rented sector and tenants themselves have become forgotten elements of the wider debate around housing. Now, there is certainty and opportunity. Over the past two years, the pandemic has shone a light on many of the challenges faced by tenants the length and breadth of the country. In response, the Coronavirus (Scotland) Act 2020 included measures to protect tenants in both the social and private rented sectors from evictions. That was very much welcomed, and the period went from three to six months. Similarly, the Coronavirus (Scotland) (No 2) Act 2020 dealt with students stuck in rental contracts during the Covid pandemic, and they were protected. Measures such as those are entirely justified, and Conservative members did not hesitate to support them.

It is right, however, that the conversation should now shift and that we are talking about supporting tenants in the long term while we look towards Scotland’s recovery from the pandemic. There is much in the rented sector strategy that we can welcome, including measures to prevent illegal evictions and evictions during the winter months.

Although those protections are there, evictions involve what happens to tenants themselves. There is a gap in the rental market, and it has been proposed that new tenancies provide financial guarantees to cover the cost of deposits, for instance. It is perhaps disappointing that such a scheme is not included in the proposals that we are debating today.

It is clear that the main issue faced by tenants is spiralling rents. Some of the largest increases have been in Fife and the Forth valley, in my region, where rents for two-bedroom properties have increased by 5 per cent in the past year, and by more than 30 per cent since 2010. In Fife, rents for three-bedroom properties have increased by 40 per cent, and rents for four-bedroom properties have increased by 72 per cent since 2010 and by 16.5 per cent in the past year alone. Such statistics make it clear that increasing rents will be among the main challenges faced by tenants. We look forward to that being addressed.

Although conversations about increasing tenants’ rights are very important, there needs to be a plan to discuss increasing housing. Tenants indeed have the right to protections. However, while we talk about the proposals that will come into effect towards the end of 2025, we should not suppose that they offer a one-stop solution to ensure that rents will be managed. We considered what is happening in the rental market and we discussed some examples from different parts of the country and around the world. In Sweden, rent controls have ensured that there is a second, sub-let property market, and there have been waiting lists there of more than a decade. In an attempt to fix one problem on the rental market, we should not inadvertently create another. It is vitally important that we manage the situation. Experience tells us that we should not try to push through such proposals without considering the potential pitfalls.

There have been some very good contributions from across the chamber. I will talk about some of them.

My colleague Miles Briggs spoke about the need to increase the supply of homes and rental properties, rent controls and rent pressure zones. What can happen with them has to be examined in the process, because there will be different market levels and rents.

Willie Rennie talked about increasing the supply of affordable housing and the key to that being ensuring that the supply is the priority. I believe that that is the case.

Finlay Carson talked about the complexities of the issue. We acknowledge that massive complexities are involved. Rented properties need responsible tenants. There are many responsible tenants and there are many responsible landlords. Finlay Carson also talked about pet-friendly rentals, which have been brought to the fore during the pandemic. They have a part to play in the sector to deal with social isolation and loneliness.

Jeremy Balfour talked about the difficulties that the market faces and short-term assessments that should not be short sighted. We must ensure that we do not fall into that trap and that we understand the needs of the workforce and how sustainable it should and can be.

The Conservatives welcome the efforts to enhance and protect tenants’ rights, and we have set out an appropriate timescale for doing that. There will be opportunities for people to contribute during the process. The key focus for the Government needs to be on investment in the housing sector more generally. The bigger problem that renters will face will be the lack of rental properties and maintaining sustainable investment. That is what the Government should address to ensure that change takes place.

It is appropriate that tenants’ needs are looked at. We will continue to call for that to ensure that there is a balance, an opportunity and a structure that supports and enhances the sector. I look forward to the debate and discussion that will take place.

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

I very much concur with what the member has said. There is no doubt that there is frustration from many members across the chamber that time constraints sometimes do not allow us to get through the questions that are set by the Parliament on working days. I believe that there is an opportunity for us to take more urgent and topical questions during the week.

The importance of local bus services, which can be a lifeline for rural communities, cannot be overestimated. Mark Ruskell’s motion acknowledges that rural communities are especially vulnerable to the loss of routes.

The X53, which covers the wee county of Clackmannanshire, Stirling and Kinross, was the catalyst for this debate. At its most recent full council meeting, Stirling Council proposed an action plan to protect bus services, and I suggest that Clackmannanshire Council do something similar.

The debilitating effect of the Covid-19 pandemic, including the impact of previous lockdowns and controls on numbers of customers, has led to less use of buses and other businesses. We have already heard about initiatives to ensure that people get free bus travel, but a bus is required before that can be taken up. If the X53 service goes, individuals will be left with no bus to use.

We are dealing with management decisions. It is management who decide which routes are lesser used or more susceptible to change. It is essential that bus operators work to meet the requirements of all the communities in which they operate. This is the second time that we have had difficulties with the X53 bus route, which is mentioned in the motion. There was talk of its removal 18 months ago. It was reinstated then, but it looks as though the route will be removed this time.

Many individuals have told me about serious difficulties, especially for those who are disabled, elderly or young. One resident told me about the effect of changes to bus services for someone who, like her, is disabled and single. She currently uses the X53 to get to Stirling, so she might no longer be able to get to her employment. Although she used a car in the past, she can no longer do so following cancer surgery. The bus service is her lifeline to employment. The anxiety of ensuring that she can keep her employment without the support of a bus service is also very difficult. Another resident who does not drive moved to Muckhart specifically because they knew they could catch the bus that goes from Alloa to Stirling. If that service is removed, there will be no link between Kinross and Stirling.

Many people have described First Bus’s planned removal of that route as callous. It will cause difficulties not only in the local area but across the central belt. If the X53 is removed from 10 January, some pupils may not be able to get to school. That will have a major impact. There will also be no service from Muckhart to Dollar, Stirling and Kinross. New housing development is taking place in Muckhart and there are other developments across the region. Such housing normally attracts young families who are interested in living in the community, but that may wane if people cannot get to work or school.

In a debate that I called for, we talked about Strathclyde Partnership for Transport and decided that a task force should be set up to look at vital services. In a debate in the previous session, I was fully supportive when we talked about dealing with cuts to bus services. Back then, I asserted the vital importance of ensuring greater urgency on the issue.

We have already heard that the pandemic has had a devastating effect on many routes in the region, so it is particularly important that we focus on the task force that was set up and its urgent recommendations. I hope that the minister will touch on that point, because, last year, the Scottish Parliament backed plans for local authorities to run their own services. At that time, I certainly believed that we needed greater protection for under-threat services in order to help local people.

My colleague Liz Smith has done a huge amount of work in supporting buses across Mid Scotland and Fife. At the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—there was an emphasis on the issue.

It is vital that FirstBus reconsiders its decision on the X53. I encourage Stirling and Clackmannanshire councils to use the powers that they have to protect the service for the future.