Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am happy with what has been said. We need to bring in the cabinet secretary for his update after three months of the provision’s being in place. I am happy with that timescale.

Thanks, convener. I had a lot of questions on child welfare reporters and contact centres, but the issues have been extensively covered, so in the interests of time I am happy to leave it at that.

Thanks, convener. I had—[Inaudible.]—I think Judith wants to come in.

Good morning. I thank the witnesses for their evidence so far. It has been a really interesting session. A lot of the areas that I was going to ask about have already had quite a good airing, which is down to the flexible way in which the meeting has been convened and members’ questions.

That said, I would still like to ask some questions. We have spoken about children’s participation, which is a big issue and was a big issue for me when we considered the Children (Scotland) Bill in the previous parliamentary session. Could the witnesses who might not have had the chance to articulate their points on the subject suggest to the committee ways in which we could ensure that children’s voices are better heard in the family law process? I know that the convener has asked members to ask their questions of specific witnesses. I am not sure whether anybody who has not had the opportunity to speak about the issue would like to come in.

Initially, I was sympathetic to the issue of compensation for miners—and, of course, I still am—but, having heard the evidence and listened to what the cabinet secretary has said, I think that the bill is not the place to address that matter. Indeed, it could even hold up the passage of the bill and the miners getting the pardon that they need. As an MSP from a mining community, I—and I hope the whole committee—will join you in pushing the UK Government to do more on this.

You are absolutely right, cabinet secretary. Given where employment law lies, it is right for compensation issues to be taken and dealt with there. I am very satisfied with what you have said, and I would not want the bill, which is so needed in communities around Scotland, to be delayed. That said, I remain sympathetic to these miners, who have missed out on so much, receiving the right compensation.

That is me, convener.

I want to make a point of clarification on the last point that my friend and colleague Richard Leonard made. I put on the record my thanks to him for all that he has done for mining communities. I know that he is a big supporter of those communities. However, he said that other members who have talked about the subject, one of whom is me, are not in favour of compensation.

I want to make it clear for any miners or people from mining communities who are watching that I am very much in favour of compensation. However, having heard the evidence from miners and others, and from the cabinet secretary, I am now convinced that the bill is not the best place for a compensation scheme. It would not suit the purpose of the bill. In our private evidence session, we heard from miners that they are very much aware of and content with the purpose and scope of the bill. It would not be fair to say that I am not in favour of a compensation scheme. I just do not think that it should be in the bill.

I say good morning to the cabinet secretary and his officials.

I am glad to hear the commitment that the cabinet secretary made in response to Alexander Stewart. I have some mining communities in my constituency and I have witnessed first hand not only the impact of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust’s work and the Scottish Government’s support but the continuing need to regenerate those communities, which still struggle because of their mining past.

I have two questions. The first follows on from Maggie Chapman’s line of questioning. It is about the definition of a miner. Obviously, we will produce our report and go into a stage 1 debate, but it is fair to say that the committee is inclined to think that the scope of the definition could be widened. Maggie Chapman’s question was more about other things that happened in the community, but we heard some examples of miners’ relatives being on the strikes. We heard from one miner’s son who was on a strike. He was not charged, but there might be examples of that happening. Will the cabinet secretary consider widening the scope of the bill to cover that?

We have heard that it might be difficult to establish the exact numbers of other people who are involved. When we spoke to retired police officers, they could not recall anybody who would be outside the current definition criteria. When we spoke to miners, they suggested that there might be some people but that it would be a limited number. I understand that there are difficulties with establishing a number. It might be quite a small number, but it might be very important and significant for those people if they could be included. However, I hear and take on board the points that you have made.

We have heard quite a bit about the compensation aspect as well. What are your thoughts on compensation for individual miners who have lost out—for example, miners who might have been dismissed because of being arrested?

I back what Rona Mackay has said and what you have said, convener. We should keep the petition open at this time. As a member of the Justice Committee in the previous parliamentary session, I know that the petition came up regularly and that we had similar discussions to the one that we are having today.

I wonder whether it would be worth the committee writing to the Scottish Government to ask for an update on its current view of the situation, given what has been requested. As for the decision to be taken today, I am minded to keep the petition open.

I am very impressed with the quality of the responses so far. It has been a really good meeting and I thank the witnesses for that. I have a question for the panel about tax policy. How could the Scottish Government use tax policy to meet human rights and equalities obligations?