Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is a great pleasure to speak on Richard Leonard’s amendment. I think that there are two broad issues here—the bill itself, and the support for compensation. It is important at least to me but, I am sure, to my colleagues as well, given the evidence that we have heard, that we do not conflate those two issues at this point.

I will explain what I mean by that. I want to leave the people in the public gallery and others who are watching our meeting in absolutely no doubt that I—and I believe that I also speak for many of my colleagues, although they are obviously free to speak for themselves—fully support the view that the miners should be compensated for the wrongs that they endured. I met a group of miners at Moodiesburn last Wednesday night, and it was harrowing to hear what they and their families experienced after they lost their jobs and did not have financial incomes for a long time. I do not think that anybody with a conscience would not support those people being compensated. However, that is not the issue here.

I know that Richard Leonard is not a member of the committee, but the committee looked at the evidence on compensation a lot. It came up in almost every evidence session on the bill. I see the convener nodding. We all asked questions about it and tried to see how it might work, and we came to the conclusion, as people will have seen in our report, that the bill is not the place to do it. There are a number of risks attached to it, one of which is that it could delay the bill for a significant time. Compensation is not the main purpose of the bill, and it would bring about a whole new legislative-type framework. We are in a space just now where we are talking about the pardon.

I say to the cabinet secretary, who will respond to Richard Leonard, that we need to look at what we can do to make compensation happen, whether that is via the UK Government or via something that the Scottish Government can do after the passage of the bill. What campaigns and processes can we be involved in in that regard? Would the cabinet secretary agree to meet me to discuss how the issue might be moved forward?

The fact that we are debating amendment 16 but are not going to get to vote on it today should demonstrate to anybody watching how complicated the issue is. My colleague Richard Leonard has lodged an amendment at stage 2. The Presiding Officer has considered the amendment and deemed that it is not appropriate to take it forward at this stage, because the financial aspects of the issue have not been considered in a financial resolution. That, in itself, should demonstrate that the committee has wrangled with the issue.

I want to be clear: there are two separate issues here. There is the bill, which is about pardoning miners for the wrongs that they endured, and there is the compensation issue. I do not want it to seem that, because we are not voting on the amendment today, I and other members do not support compensation. I would like to explore with the cabinet secretary how we might go about achieving the aims of the amendment.

I welcome the amendments that have been lodged, particularly those by the cabinet secretary. They reflect the evidence that the committee heard on expanding the types of crimes that are covered, and it is good to see that the Government and the cabinet secretary have listened to what the committee has said.

I especially note the introduction of new condition C, which brings real additional value to the legislation. We have heard about the financial impact on mining families, miners and, of course, communities. If Willie Doolan does not mind my saying, Moodiesburn is an example of a place where the community has still not fully recovered. Including in the scope of the bill individuals who perhaps committed a financial crime to relieve financial suffering is an absolutely fantastic move forward, and I will certainly support that and all the Government amendments.

I know that some of the other amendments that Alexander Stewart and Pam Gosal lodged are likely to be superseded by Government amendments. The Government has already given clarity on those matters.

Given what he said, I have a lot of sympathy for Richard Leonard’s amendment 17. My constituency would previously have been covered by the old Strathclyde region, and it seems strange and odd that only people in Strathclyde were convicted of an offence under this particular legislation. However, I have listened to what the cabinet secretary has said and have heard his very clear offer to Richard Leonard to sit down and work with him ahead of stage 3. When he was making that offer, I saw Richard Leonard nodding his head. It seems to be a sensible solution to get a bit more clarity on that issue. If only folk in Strathclyde have been convicted of those offences, I am not happy, and I know that the cabinet secretary will not be happy, either.

I welcome the panel and the people in the public gallery. It is good to see folk back there after such a long time. I hope that Willie Doolan from my constituency does not mind if I give him a special shout-out. He has been a real stalwart for the Auchengeich mining community in Moodiesburn.

I welcome the debate and that the cabinet secretary has responded to the committee’s recommendations in broadening the scope of the definition of who would be a qualifying individual. As Pam Duncan-Glancy said, we heard strong and compelling evidence on that. I am very much minded to support the Government’s amendment, which I think is a major step forward.

I also support the principle of Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendments, but I heard what the cabinet secretary said about the difficulties that might be involved. I would back up Pam Duncan-Glancy’s ask of the cabinet secretary at this stage, which is to work with the Government before stage 3. I hope that the cabinet secretary will respond to that. Rather than moving her amendments at stage 2, taking them forward into stage 3 might be a sensible solution. However, the amendments that have been lodged by Keith Brown at stage 2 are certainly a fantastic step forward and they definitely add value to the bill.

It is very important. We might not be those men who have said those things or done those things, but we have all been men for all our lives. We have been younger men and may have been in situations where we could have done more. That is why work such as this is important in changing the culture and society that we live in and in challenging men. We have got a big role in that change. I thank you for that.

On a personal note, I became dad to a daughter in the past year. When you were speaking about some of the things that it was reported to you that people were saying to others outside nightclubs for example, it sent shivers down my spine to think that, if we do not do something to change that culture, someone who I love so much could be in that position, too. It changes your mindset. Thank you for challenging us in that way and for making us feel uncomfortable. I say that on behalf of all the men around the table today.

My question is about funding. You have said that you think that the Scottish Government will need to provide additional funding in support of the legislation. Where specifically do you think that that funding should go?

The work has been really good and I welcome your opening statement, Baroness Kennedy. You challenge men to support the legislation that you are proposing; I support it and I am sure that others do, too. I am sure that I speak for colleagues—members, clerks and other workers—when I say that we should feel uncomfortable as men. That is important. Bill Brash is sitting there smiling.

Do you think that the additional resources will have to be tailored specifically to criminal justice? I am thinking, for example, of diversion schemes that would deal with misogyny for young people who get involved in that kind of trouble. Alternatively, do you think that more general work on changing the culture needs to be done in schools? Do we need a bit of both?

With regard to remand, which is the first issue that is highlighted, I wonder whether it would be worth mentioning in the “Notes and additional information” column the extra £3.2 million that has recently been announced for diversion from prosecution. I know that it is mentioned somewhere else; in fact, I have just scrolled down and seen the reference to

“a further £3.2m for bail supervision schemes”.

I am content that it is mentioned in the document, but I wonder whether the first box in that section might be the best place to put it. I think that that would make the point more clearly—although, if anyone disagrees with me, I say again that I know that reference is made to it elsewhere. However, the first box is about remand, and the key issue in that respect is getting

“details from the Cabinet Secretary on how he plans to tackle remand numbers”.

As he has made an announcement on that very matter, it should be mentioned there.

Thank you. Does Sarah Axford have any views on that final question?

Thank you.

Your answer leads me on nicely to my final question, which is about bringing the provisions in section 21 into force, which we have touched on already. The Scottish Government has expressed a policy concern about bringing those provisions into force because of the fear that children could end up with multiple support workers. In my experience, it is not uncommon for children to have multiple professionals or agencies working with them. Is that a valid concern in this context, or is it more about having an integrated approach to addressing the issue? That question is for Dr Barnes Macfarlane.