Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you very much for the opening statement. I have a couple of questions to ask, before I invite questions from other members of the committee.

It is worth recapping where things were back in 2018-19. The conclusions of the 2018-19 report spoke about

“ineffective leadership, inadequate workforce planning, a lack of clarity over roles and responsibilities and poor relationships and organisational culture”,

which existed to such an extent that, in giving evidence to the Public Audit Committee’s predecessor committee, the auditor said:

“In terms of the findings and recommendations, I cannot think of another report that has raised such serious issues during my time in this role.”—[Official Report, Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee, 16 January 2020; c 21.]

That is a pretty damning indictment of how things were.

When we turn to the report that has just been published, we see that there appears to have been a considerable turnaround. My first question is this: what has been the catalyst for such a transformative difference in the organisation?

Openness and transparency were previously identified as issues back in 2018-19, so that is a continuing area of interest for us.

My final question goes back to the 72 actions that came out of the recommendations, which the Auditor General mentioned. Of the 72, 71 have been implemented. However, the nature of the beast that is the Public Audit Committee being what it is, I want to ask about the 72nd action, which has not so far been implemented. Can someone explain why there has been a hold-up with it? Is it simply a matter of timing; is it contingent on other issues? What is the reason? I ask so that we have a better understanding of the outstanding action.

We have more questions on engagement, which will come up later in the evidence session. Colin Beattie has questions about board scrutiny.

Thanks, Craig. Pat, it would be useful if we could get that information, which would aid us in our consideration of the report.

Before I move on, I have something else to raise in this area. The Auditor General mentioned exhibit 1—the organisational chart—as something for us to have a look at. Mention has been made of the important additional resource that has now been put into the organisation through the appointment of a head of communications and promotions. When I look at the organisational chart, however, I see a chief executive, below which is a director of Gaelic education, a director of language planning and community developments, and a head of finance and corporate services. I do not see a head of communications and promotions. Are they not at the same level? Are they not part of that more senior executive management team?

It might be worth giving some reflection to that.

Sharon Dowey has a number of questions on roles and responsibilities stemming from the previous report and the latest report.

We want to further interrogate the board’s financial position in terms of not only its management but its sustainability.

We will move on to look in a bit more depth at the board’s financial management. Craig Hoy will pose a number of questions to probe that.

Richard Leonard has identified an error in his contribution and provided the following correction.

At col 20, paragraph 9—

Original text—

She talked about her husband John, who was blacklisted and convicted of obstruction in 1984 and fined £5, which resulted in him losing out on a £26,000 redundancy payment from the Frances colliery.

Corrected text—

She talked about her husband John, who was blacklisted and convicted of obstruction in 1984 and fined £50, which resulted in him losing out on a £27,000 redundancy payment from the Frances colliery.

I again thank you for giving me the opportunity to ask a couple of brief questions.

Language is extremely important, and the choice of words in this session has struck me. Jim McBrierty, you used the expression “infiltrators”. I presume that you do not consider Nicky Wilson, Alex Bennett and Bob Young to be “infiltrators”. How many of the 400-odd convicted miners that we are talking about would you classify as “infiltrators”?

The language that Tom Wood used, which I have heard him use before, really resonated. Tom, I think that you spoke about the coal board exercising extrajudicial punishment that you considered to be spiteful, disproportionate, excessive and so on, with people who committed minor breach of the peace offences being subsequently sacked and blackballed.

In those circumstances, what do you think that the most appropriate remedy is? You spoke about the lives that were changed, the lives that were lost and the course of people’s destinies being changed by that simple act, which you described as extrajudicial punishment. In those circumstances, do you not think that there is at least a case for some form of compensation to be paid to people?

Thank you, convener. I appreciate the opportunity to ask my questions this morning.

As Karen Adam said, the strike was a defining moment in modern Scottish history and ensuring that we get the legislation right will be a defining moment for the Scottish Parliament.

I was old enough to be around during the miners strike. I was living in Stirling at the time and the Polmaise colliery was one of the flashpoints that precipitated the national strike.

I want to make a couple of points, if I may, convener. Bob Young introduced himself as the NUM chairman at Comrie, Alex Bennett introduced himself as the NUM chairman at Monktonhall, and Nicky Wilson, now the president of the union, was also very active. We need to understand that it was a clear attempt to decapitate the leadership of the union. That must be recognised in our approach to what happened and what we need to do now.

Alex spoke about his own experience. In preparation for today, I read the testimony of Cathy Mitchell from Kirkcaldy, because the families as well as the miners themselves were affected by what happened. She talked about her husband John, who was blacklisted and convicted of obstruction in 1984 and fined £5, which resulted in him losing out on a £26,000 redundancy payment from the Frances colliery. [Richard Leonard has corrected this contribution. See end of report.] The challenges were very real and that is why it is perfectly legitimate for us to look at compensation. Clear financial hardship and detriment were caused. I hope that we will address that in the course of our deliberations in the Parliament.

I will put my question to Nicky Wilson. One of the arguments that people have made against compensation is that we no longer live in an age where there is a unitary UK Government because we have devolution, so why should the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament be in any way responsible for what happened back then?

There is now a Scottish Parliament and there is no longer a Scottish Office—there is a Scotland Office. We no longer have eight police forces—there is just one. The National Coal Board does not exist in the way that it did. My question to Nicky is this: does that mean that an apology is impossible and that financial compensation could not be met?