 The next item of business is a debate on motion 3864 in the name of Keith Brown on Ten Miner Strike Pardons Scotland Bill. I'll be grateful with members who wish to speak in the debate and press their requests to speak buttons now. I call it on Keith Brown to speak to and move the motion up to nine minutes, Cabinet Secretary. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm glad to open the stage one debate on the principles I also like to thank the convener of the Equality, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee for both themselves and the members of that committee for their scrutiny of the bill and their stage 1 report. I am grateful to those who provided views to the committee as part of that process, many of whom experienced the strike at first hand and gave very powerful testimonies. There are, of course, a number of recommendations in the report that will require careful consideration as I reflected in my response to the committee's report. I do, however, welcome the recommendations that the general principles of the bill be agreed to. As we know, the 1884-85 minor strike was divisive in many ways. The unprecedented strain and turmoil of the year-law dispute was felt by many people, either indirectly connected to the coal mining industry, and a sense of a famous Clears in Scotland's former mining heartlands, one of which I represent myself. The committee's report also, importantly, referred to the last time's psychological and economic impact, which the strike had on generations of communities. Indeed, the lasting effects of the strike were also common themes in the evidence received by the independent review group, who recommended the pardon, and in the representations made to the Government in its consultation last year. In commissioning the independent review in 2018 and subsequently bringing forward this bill, the Scottish Government is giving a voice to many former miners who still feel the burden of a criminal conviction and to their families who remain angry about the management of the strike. We recognise that an uncovering of the truth of what happened during the strike is important to those affected. The committee also heard that more needs to be done for those communities in terms of investment and providing opportunities, and that many communities are forgotten and taken for granted. In my evidence of the committee, I spoke about the Scottish Government's support for the work of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust. We value our long-standing relationship with Coalfields Regeneration Trust and the support that they have delivered to ex-Coalfield communities through our strategic partnership. In 2021-22, we have supported its work in our ex-Coalfield communities through an annual grant of £754,000 made available through our Empowering Communities programme. Funding has been enabled or has enabled delivery of grassroots activity that seeks to tackle issues associated with poverty in these areas. This has delivered a wide range of activities supporting these fragile communities, and many of them are the worst affected by the pandemic. By concentrating our regeneration efforts on those communities that need it most and working with local people to deliver change, we hope that this can help to reverse the decline felt in former mining communities. Of course, that is present day, and to fully understand the events of the strike nearly four decades ago, we need a UK-wide public inquiry. The committee's view is that a UK-wide inquiry could consider the management of the strike and whether compensation for former miners is appropriate, and I completely support that view. My sincere hope is that the passage of this bill will strengthen the calls for a full UK public inquiry. To that end, the Scottish Government will be happy to consider and compile as much factual and other information that other bodies may be able to offer as part of any future representations that are made to the UK Government. The search for answers should not end here. It should continue beyond the passage of this bill. However, for now, we have the opportunity to bring some reconciliation to our mining community, and that should be the objective of this bill. It is clear that the bill is not about a portioning blame on any particular individual or group of individuals or to question the decisions made by the judiciary at that time. The bill does not intend to rewrite history, neither does it seek to cast judgment on all the events that happened during the strike. We do not have the facility to do that. We neither have the records or the powers to look at all the issues that a full UK public inquiry could perhaps consider. By bringing forward the bill, the Scottish Government is, within its existing powers, seeking to recognise disproportionate and often unforeseen and long-lasting consequences that fell on miners as a result of its convictions. The pardon therefore symbolises the desire to heal old wounds by removing the stigma of a current conviction for those who meet the qualifying criteria. I recognise that, as the committee has highlighted in its report the highly abnormal social situation that the strike created, there were many interests that became involved in the dispute in different capacities. I myself was a student at the time and involved in activities from that side. The strike is still an emotive subject, and therefore the bill seeks to deal with the past in a sensitive way and to ensure that an appropriate balance is struck. Therefore, I will consider carefully the committee's recommendations around expanding eligibility to family members and others who stood in solidarity with striking miners. I will also consider whether it would be appropriate to extend the pardon to convictions that arose from incidents beyond the picket lines and other demonstration-type gatherings, and I will also reflect on whether the list of qualifying offensities should be broadened. It will be important for me to discuss those matters with mining and policing interests before determining my position. Regarding whatever scope the Parliament agrees for the pardon, I am pleased that the committee considers that the pardon should apply automatically. The committee has also highlighted the need to maximise awareness of the pardon, and I agree that that is vital. I can confirm that the Scottish Government is arising from the discussions that I had with the committee. I have had some productive discussions on that already, with a view to identifying and reaching out to those who may benefit from being informed about the pardon. That work is on-going and will bring challenges, given the passage of time since the strike and the lack of robust records. I am committed to working with partners and using as many members as we can to maximise awareness of the pardon should the bill be passed, and I hope that members will feel reassured by that. I want to underline the clear message that the Scottish Government is sending by bringing the bill forward. It is that we understand that it was the unprecedented strain of the bitter and prolonged dispute that led to so many convictions and that, as a society, we want to pardon those convictions. In that way, we are recognising the hardship and suffering of entire communities and bringing some comfort and reconciliation to the many who were involved. I move that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the minor strike parms Scotland bill. I am pleased to speak today as convener of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee in relation to our stage 1 consideration of the bill. I would like to thank everyone who gets evidence. We would particularly like to thank the mining communities who took the time to share their experiences with us and the Coalfield Regeneration Trust and other organisations and groups for their assistance. The evidence that we heard was invaluable to our work. I would also like to thank our clerks for supporting the committee through the scrutiny process and in the production of our stage 1 report. We had strong support for the bill and we welcomed the Scottish Government's commitment to writing some of the wrongs that many communities suffered during the minor strike. The committee agrees that an automatic pardon will go some way to providing justice for families affected. The committee acknowledges the difficulties faced by the Scottish Government in identifying individuals who may fall within the scope of the pardon due to a lack of available records from the time. While witnesses broadly supported that an automatic pardon, the committee also heard that, in addition, a letter or written statement from the Scottish Government would be welcomed by individuals affected and particularly by those families where miners have now passed away. We welcome the Scottish Government's proposal to work with the national union of mine workers to identify as many individuals as possible and we recommend that the Scottish Government provides a straightforward way for individuals and families to contact it directly should they consider they fall within the scope of the pardon, for example, via the Scottish Government's website. The committee is keen to ensure, however, that, in taking such steps, there is no delay in the proposed passage to the bill. In fact, the committee is aware that, in any amendments to the bill, there should be no delay to the passage of the bill. Our report notes the difficulties faced by the Scottish Government in accurately determining the number of non-miners who were arrested while supporting miners during the strike. We accept that the definition will capture the majority of individuals affected. However, we heard from mining communities that some family members and friends of miners who stood in solidarity with them were also convicted as a result. Our report recommends that the Scottish Government considers extending the definition in section 4, particularly in relation to family members of miners. We also heard calls that the pardon should be extended to include actions that occurred in the community associated with the strike. On balance, we recommend that the Scottish Government should consider extending a pardon to those arrested as a result of those other activities, particularly those associated with miners' welfare. Clicking notes that the Scottish Government went further than the recommendations of the independent review in the offences included, and in so doing so has captured the most common offences committed during strike-related activity. We explored the scope of the offences, including at section 2 of the bill, including whether those convicted of offences under the conspiracy and protection of property act 1875 should be included and that the committee did not, however, reach agreement as to whether the offences proposed in the bill are adequate. We heard views for and against an award of compensation for those who fall within the scope of the pardon. A report acknowledges the significant impact to many individuals that convictions had, not only in terms of loss of direct income through redundancy but also loss of additional employment rights, such as redundancy payments, pension rights and future prospects, which were prejudiced as a result of having a conviction. While the committee recognises those impacts, a report acknowledges that many of the issues that would require to be addressed are reserved to the UK Government. We also acknowledge that compensation moves the bill away from its intention of having a symbolic effect. On the other hand, we consider that implementation of such a scheme in Scotland would create significant practical difficulties that would delay the passage of the bill and that the bill is not the appropriate mechanism for delivering such a scheme. However, we note calls from the Scottish Government for the UK Government to undertake a full public inquiry into the minor strike. Art of any inquiry, the committee would like to see the options for compensation for minors and their families considered. The extensive evidence on the policing of the strike and the role of the judiciary and her conflicting accounts from witnesses. We agree that a full investigation into the policing and management of the strike is long overdue and should take place. We note views of both sides as to whether the UK or Scottish Government should take responsibility for an inquiry. Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament were not in existence at the time of the strike, though police and sheriffs were acting under a Scotland-specific system. On balance, the committee agrees that the most appropriate method for investigation is for the UK Government to hold a full public inquiry. We note calls from the Scottish Government for the UK Government to do so and we urge both Governments to work together on this. A powerful evidence of the lasting psychological and economic impact that the strike has had on generations of communities that may have never fully recovered and that impacts are still felt today with calls for more to be done in terms of investment and providing opportunities. We welcome the Scottish Government's funding and work to date through the Coalfields Regeneration Trust and we urge the minister to ensure that that continues. I also welcome the cabinet secretary's commitment to take further steps and go beyond the passage of the bill and we look forward to seeing where progress can be made. Our report also notes the Scottish Government's commitment to continue discussions with the UK Government in taking responsibility for the suffering of the mining communities during its strike period. Cabinet secretary wrote to the committee last week on the Scottish Government response to our stage 1 report and the offer to meet members of the committee for discussions in advance of stage 2 is welcome. The committee is content to recommend to the Parliament that the general principles of the bill are agreed to and that we look forward to hearing more from the Scottish Government about what further work it plans to undertake to continue to help to rebuild these communities. I now call on Alexander Stewart up to six minutes, please. I am pleased to be able to open the stage 1 debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. The minor strike bill will be an important piece of legislation for many people, not just for what it seeks to do but for what it symbolises. The bill is an opportunity for a significant step towards providing much needed closure, not only for the individuals concerned but also for the families and the communities across Scotland that were affected. For this reason, the Scottish Conservatives will support the general principles of the bill at decision time this evening. Alongside fellow members from the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, I have listened to swathes of evidence that makes it clear how much this bill is required. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the many witnesses who have provided evidence to the committee over the preceding months. I would also like to acknowledge the opportunity this morning of meeting members of the union and minors and their families, along with my colleague from the committee, Pam Gossel. The journey to this stage of preceding started nearly four years ago when the independent review was originally commissioned. The scale of the public response to the review led to it being delayed twice. It was not until late 2020 that the independent review published its recommendations that a pardon be provided through an act of the Scottish Parliament. Our committee has since devoted considerable time to this issue and ensured that parliamentary session is important that it is now here with us in the chamber today. Whilst I and other committee members have spent months preparing and scrutinising the bill, there are many people who have waited nearly four decades to finally receive some level of closure on this issue. We are all familiar with the statistics. Around 1,350 arrests were made during the minor strikes in 1984-85, with around 400 of them leading to convictions. However, for those of us who witnessed the strikes, we know that such mere statistics do not come close to capturing the turbulent times that we witnessed and how deeply those strikes scarred, not just individuals but whole communities as well. The pardon that the bill seeks to provide will not right every wrong, Presiding Officer, of the past, but it will go close to ensuring that there is some closure. That is important that we do that, because it has to be a meaningful step in the right direction, and I welcome that. Although it may be quite a small bill on looking at it, no doubt there are several aspects around which require further debate to take place. One of the key issues of the debate has been the scope offered under section 2 of the bill, and whether the scope is wide enough in the bill, which we talked about at stage 1. It is also important that we ensure that a pardon is granted wherever it would be appropriate. However, as with all legislation, it will be required to be balanced and delicate information taken. To this end, I welcome the cabinet secretary's commitment to take a cautious approach in considering any extensions to the offences that are listed under section 2. Although it is important to specify that officers and offences fell within the scope of the bill, it is also important that we set out what seeks to take place. It stands for some of the language in section 1 of the bill that requires some clarity. I hope that the Scottish Government and the cabinet secretary will look at that as the bill progresses. The Law Society of Scotland has pointed out that the inclusion of terms such as picket, demonstration or similar gatherings to describe the settings in which offences took place risks undermining the purpose of the bill. That could lead to certain individuals mistakenly believing that they will be issued with a pardon, so it is very important that all that is considered as we move into stage 2. I also acknowledge that there have been multiple calls for compensation payments to be included as part of the bill's provision, and I have no doubt that those calls will continue to be evoked as we progress. However, on the issue, I would highlight the findings of the committee's report. We indicated that a look at compensation scheme for the bill risks delaying the bill, and that is the last thing that we want to do. A fair compensation scheme would likely require the creation of an independent scheme. The operation of that would depend on historical evidence, and that is pretty patchy and incomplete because of the time and the duration that is moved on. Discussions regarding compensation for the events of 1980-45 will no doubt take place, and I think that they should. We will look at how that will progress as the bill goes forward. As I stated earlier, the bill has a long time coming. Any further delay would be regrettable. In conclusion, the Scottish Conservatives support the general principles of the bill. It is clear from John Scott, who sees independent review that there is justification in some circumstances relating to the strike. It is also therefore a correct approach that we look at the crimes that are related to the strike, and we look at the circumstances, but it is ensuring that we meet certain criteria. The details of the criteria will need to be looked at as we progress into stage 2 and stage 3. I look forward to the opportunity of scrutinising any proposed amendments to ensure that the bill serves its course and is not interrupted and given the opportunity. I look forward to the following stages of the bill, because the bill is very important to many individuals and communities. To be a member of this Parliament is to hold in our hands a great privilege. We are sent here to make a difference, to do the right thing, to look to the future, but also to understand our past, to provide new hope but to honour old debts as well. Of course, with this bill, we cannot turn back the clock. All of those lives destroyed by the brutality of the dispute cannot be restored. The families ripped apart cannot be put back together. All of those years lost cannot be refound, but we can and we must right historical wrongs. Back in 1984-85, the whole might of the state was thrown against the miners, against their trade union, against their families, their communities and even against their very way of life. So now it is time, all of these years later, for the whole might of the state to be thrown in behind the miners, behind their communities and behind their families. That is why we say, that is why the miners union says an honest and dignified response to what happened all those years ago is to establish through this bill the principle of a compensation scheme. I have to say to the cabinet secretary and to the government that this is the glaring omission of the bill and the excuses for this are many and various, often at odds with each other. It is that employment law and industrial relations are not devolved or even that this Parliament did not exist in 1984. It is that on the one hand this Parliament is not competent or on the other that time is of the essence. But if it is competent for this Parliament to pardon the miners for what happened in 1984-85, it must be competent for this Parliament to compensate the miners for what happened in 1984-85. After all, this bill is not about the application of employment law during the strike, it is about the application of criminal law during the strike. It comes about because striking miners were arrested in Scotland by Scottish police officers, were prosecuted in Scotland, by Scottish procurator ffiscals and they were convicted in Scotland by Scottish sheriffs in Scottish courts. It was that in the words of the Scottish inquiry, I quote, arbitrary application of the criminal law that led to the disproportionate excessive and unreasonable treatment of the miners in Scotland that we must now address. The cabinet secretary has said on the record, and let me quote him, police singing Scotland followed a different path. It did. If you were a striking miner in Scotland, you were twice as likely to be arrested and you were three times as likely to be dismissed as in any other coal field. We cannot turn our back on these facts. Of course, it is another fact that the Scottish Parliament did not exist at the time of the strike, but in 2017, this Parliament, in an act of compassion and humanity, born out of a sense of an injustice done, set up the Scottish Infected Blood Support Scheme to compensate people infected with hepatitis C and HIV, going back not to 1984 but to 1974. When we are told that the addition of a compensation scheme would unduly delay this bill, I say that if the last two years has taught us anything, it is that legislation and compensation can be introduced in double quick time when political will, parliamentary force and popular consent is behind it. Let me turn finally to the scope of the pardon. The Government's bill only covers those arrested on picket lines, demonstrations or travelling to or from them, but that is to wholly misunderstand what happened back then. Police harassment was not confined to the picket line. The strike did not start and stop at the colliery gate. Miners did not just sit at home when they were not on picket duty. They were out-agitating, educating and organising. Many of them and their supporters were arrested and convicted for activities relating to the strike in the community, which is why they must be pardoned too. In the end, this is a matter of political conviction and moral judgment. The miners were wrongly criminalised. Miners like Jim Taney, John Mitchell, Alex Bennett and the late Doddie McShane, like Bob Young, who is here in the public gallery today. Miners' wives, partners, sisters and daughters, like Angela Farrell, Janet and Nicola Regan, who are also here in Parliament today. Women may not have been criminally convicted, but were socially and economically condemned by what happened. Society owes these miners and their families a debt. In the words of Alex Bennett, it is not compensation, it is what we do and so to those MSPs who are hovering about this issue, the question you must ask yourself in the coming weeks is this, if not now when, if not us who. This is about our soul as a nation, our values as a society. It is about who we are. This is the only chance that we have. Do not leave this as unfinished business. Do not settle for mediocrity. Extend the pardon, pay compensation and let it at last secure justice for the miners. Thank you very much indeed, Mr Leonard. I could please advise those in the public gallery that participating and that includes imploding is not permitted. Thank you very much. We now move to the open debate and I call firstly Annabelle Hewing to be followed by Russell Finlay for a generous four minutes, Mr Hewing. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As the MSP for Cowdenbeath constituency, it is a privilege to be called to speak in this debate this afternoon. Having been a member of the Scottish Government justice team when the announcement to proceed with the independent review by John Scott was made in June 2018, I am very pleased indeed to see that we have now reached this stage. For it is beyond doubt that the scars of the 1984-85 minor strike are still felt deeply by former mining communities in my constituency and, of course, in other parts of Scotland. Indeed, the strike involved a unique set of circumstances that saw entire communities defending their way of life and their jobs against a UK Tory Government that seemed determined to bring them to their knees by deploying the forces of the state to that end. In that regard, it seems beyond doubt that the direct employer, the national co-board, operated an entirely arbitrary and unjustified policy on dismissal frequently without reinstatement. That was for what were involved in the main part relatively minor acts of public disorder punished by modest financial penalties imposed by a court. As was narrated in the John Scott review, some miners were even dismissed notwithstanding that they had been admonished in court or found not guilty or subject to a not proven verdict, or indeed not even brought to court at all. Dismissal brought with it financial hardship with loss of income, loss of pension rights and difficulties for many in obtaining future employment. However, above all that, miners and their families lost their good name, their respectability and, as honest, hardworking men, during a dirty and dangerous job, perhaps that loss was the deepest cut to bear. The corrosive bitter scars left impacted greatly on one's proud mining communities, which felt abandoned by the state and totally disrespected. The fact that it is the SNP Scottish Government that has acted to recognise those wrongs by way of a pardon must be commended. However, in the brief time left today, there are two specific issues that I would wish to raise as regards the scope of the bill, in terms of who it covers and in terms of what it covers. The first issue concerns incidents that took place in the community but anent the minor strike. As currently drafted, as we have heard, such incidents would not be caught by the bill. I believe that such an approach is unnecessarily restrictive and does not properly reflect the unique circumstances of the times. Indeed, as a constituent pointed out to me recently, incidentally, the youngest minor to be sacked during the minor strike, any such breaches of the peace did in fact result in dismissal, whereas if the same type of incident had occurred outwith the context of the minor strike, the minor would not have lost his job, his livelihood and his good name. I note in this regard that the Equality, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee supports such an extension of the scope of the bill and it is very much to be welcomed that the Cabinet Secretary has undertaken today to reflect further on this matter. The second issue I wish to raise concerns the issue of some form of financial redress. Whilst I understand, at least as a lawyer, the considerable legal and practical challenges involved, I would also urge further reflection here. For it is beyond doubt that minor suffered financial hardship as a result of the unique set of circumstances of the minor strike of 1984-85, that the circumstances are deemed to be unique, is borne out by the fact that the Scottish Government is indeed proceeding with a pardons bill, that such financial hardship was borne by those living in already deprived communities is self-evident, that for the most part there would appear to be a relatively small subset of individuals who would be covered, and that there would appear to be precedent for the general principle of financial redress from the state. In conclusion, the scars of the 1984-85 minor strike are deep, the sense of injustice is palpable, the wrong suffered by mining communities lives on to this day. For all those miners and their families, including the Benarty 6, and for all those mining communities, I will be proud to vote for the bill at stage 1 this evening. I would like to begin by paying tribute to the former miners who are here today and who I had the pleasure of meeting this morning. One of them is Jerry Farrell, who worked in Lanarkshire and Fife and was fortunate not to have been convicted during the strike. He tells of one close call when he escaped the clutches of some policeman by leaping onto the back of a passing bin lorry. Jerry, like the other men and women here today, are not criminals. They were hardworking people who took great pride in their jobs and in their communities. I do not sit on the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, so I do not have the knowledge of today's other speakers. I am glad that cross-party consensus has been achieved and that, after years of hard work by many people, we are debating the minor strike bill. As is so often the case, the more you look at an issue, the more its complexities emerge. They are much greater than my short contribution will allow, but the committee has wrestled with a series of issues, including patchy records, the ultimate scope and legal delivery of a pardon and the unresolved question of possible compensation. However, I think that the consensus that we see today speaks to a healthy ability to look at such a divisive issue in a non-partisan way. As Alexander Stewart put it, a pardon will not right every wrong of the past nor will it close every wound, but it is the right thing to do. What struck me most about hearing from the former miners this morning was the way in which the strike caused so much division. It sent police officers against miners, friends against friends and neighbours against neighbours. Jerry tells me how some lannacher steel workers were hostile to the minor strike over fears that could threaten their own livelihoods. I was only 11 years old during the strike, but I do recall the images of violence on TV news. I should declare an interest in the fact that I am a member of a trade union in the national union of journalists. Although I do not even begin to claim to be able to understand the suffering of Scotland's mining communities, I have been involved in industrial action. As a journalist, I stood in a picket line for two weeks. It was peaceful and nobody wanted to be there. We chose to forfeit our wages because we shared a powerful belief that what we were doing was the right thing to do and that making a stand was the only way to save jobs and preserve a newspaper group with a proud history of serving Scots. We must look to the future and it is the right approach to issue pardons. I agree with the cabinet secretary for the need to be cautious about the exact nature of offences that will qualify. I hope that the Government will do that in a considered way that does not hinder community reconciliation nor leave our justice system with a precedent that could have unintended consequences. The introduction of the bill should look to heal the divisions from the 1980s and recognise the dignity of Scotland's proud coal miners and their families. It should also serve to remind us of the dangers of a society that is divided. I thank the former miners who have given evidence in the journey of the bill, the independent review group led by John Scott QC, the work of Neil Findlay and the committee for their work and the stage 1 scrutiny and report. Miners collectively as an industrial sector were on the receiving end of a politically motivated government instigated industrial dispute that led to the proactive economic decimation and social dislocation of coalfield communities. I grew up in Ayrshire and have represented West Lothian in this Parliament for many years and I am acutely aware personally of the hardship caused. The 1980s minor strike was one of the factors that led me into active politics as a teenager, as it did for many of my generation. I am also the former member of the SNP Scottish Government Cabinet who actually proposed the idea of the use of the collective automatic pardon mechanism to break through some of the complications that were endangering initiating the legislation and ultimately the pardon that it will deliver, a small role but an important role. I also speak as the granddaughter of a minor that I never met who died from lung disease. He worked on the land but was sent down the pits during the Second World War and died when my own mother was only 15. Those were mining communities who experienced an unjust energy transition, with generational unemployment, poverty and health problems that that brought, which stayed and, in some cases, remain decades after the 1980s. The stage 1 report and the cabinet secretary's response are considered. If working with the NUM on data protection issues a letter or written statement can be issued, it should. Points are well made about family members and the wider geography of offences and the scope of offences. I am pleased that the justice secretary, in his reply, is prepared to look at the committee's recommendations. I would stress that the committee itself notes that the Scottish Government went further than the recommendations of the independent review group in the offences included, and in doing so has captured the most common offences committed during strike-related activity. As an MSP, former miners have asked me to pursue the one-sided pensions arrangements, whether the UK Government has made more than £4 billion in the scheme and that urgently needs addressed. They have asked me to support the work of the co-field regeneration trust, and that is why the committee's recommendation that the Scottish Government support that work is welcome. They have asked me to pursue industrial claims for Whitefinger. Almost 20 years ago, as a Lothians MSP, I met a group of former miners in the Heather Bell pub in Fault House to meet them to help with their industrial Whitefinger claims. It was January, it was dark, it was cold, it was bleak. Those miners, many in their 70s and 80s apologise to me that there were not as many of them to meet me as they wanted, but that a funeral was taking place that day in Fault House of a former miner who had died and never seen his claim met. Those elderly and industry injured miners apologise to me, but it is the generations of politicians long on and generations who benefited from the fruits of their labour, often at their terrible cost, who should be apologising to them. We cannot right all the political wrongs over the former state government. The current UK state government should conduct a public inquiry to examine, among other things, policing and, indeed, any opportunities for compensation, but we must not hold this bill up in any shape or form. I know those Fault House former miners that I met must all be now long dead, but there are other miners who have convictions and their families who are still with us, and I want them to receive that automatic pardon and we must agree to the general principles of this bill. I thank the committee and the clerks for their work in bringing this report to Parliament and to thank all those who have given evidence. As colleagues have said passionately across the chamber, for miners and their families and the local communities who jobs and income was devastated, mine closures and the strike has impacted on their lives and wellbeing ever since. As a Labour student, I well remember supporting miners and their families, raising money to enable them to buy food and to enable their families to survive the strike, and when the strike started in March 1984, nearly 94 per cent of just over 13,000 miners in Scotland went on strike, so it was a huge response to what was happening. When I met former miners last month in Danderhall, they were absolutely clear that they welcomed this bill, but they also believed that it needs to be amended to ensure that those who are pardoned or their surviving relatives are properly informed so that they know that they have been pardoned. I have also welcomed the committee's recommendation that the Scottish Government considers extending the definition in section 4 to make sure that friends and families of those involved in supporting the strike are also pardoned, given the massive impact of the strike on people's lives. Pardons should be granted for all but the most serious offences, such as serious acts of physical violence towards another human. As others have said, there was an injustice that happened. There should also be an extension to the circumstances of how or where an offence that led to conviction, currently on or travelling to or from an official picket or demonstration, should be addressed. There were people who were addressed and convicted for crimes in the community that were all about the miners' strike that will not be pardoned, so we need more than a symbolic pardon. I was disappointed, although I thought that the report was really well put together, that the committee, while understanding the powerful arguments for compensating miners, did not support adding compensation to the bill because it would be difficult and could delay the bill. However, I would say to them that miners and their families surely have waited long enough. The strike was 37 years ago and some of those receiving a pardon will no longer be with us. As others have said, many had industrial injuries and diseases that they have had to live with. They all lost their jobs and for many the impact on the strike meant that they could not get a job in their community. They lost out, redundancy payments, pension rights and future prospects prejudiced by having a conviction. Even if someone was found to have been unfairly dismissed by an industrial tribunal, it did not lead to them getting their job back or the financial compensation that they deserved. As the Law Society of Scotland said in its briefing this week, the strike has left division and long-standing impacts on individuals, their families and the communities involved. Since that time, there have been questions raised about political interference, policing, fairness and how the courts dealt with miners who were accused of crimes resulting from the strikes. It was nearly four decades ago, so let's make sure that the bill goes through. However, if there are powerful arguments for compensation or financial redress, as I think Annabelle Ewing made very effectively that point earlier, as Richard Leonard said, if not now, then when. Surely this is on us to get it right. Absolutely, a pardon is very much welcomed, but surely it has to be backed by action on compensation, on financial redress and an inquiry to address the injustice that was meted out simply for standing up for people's communities. However, let's not kick the issue of compensation into touch. Those families, their children and their communities are still suffering now. Let us amend the bill so that it delivers the justice that our forming mining communities deserve. I now call on Colin Beattie to be followed by Maggie Chapman, again generous four minutes. Let me first direct members to my declaration of interest, which states that I am vice-chair of the National Mining Museum of Scotland. First, I would like to thank the committee, CLACs and indeed everybody involved in this bill. I am particularly pleased to be speaking in this debate today. To many, the minor strike of 84-85 happened a very long time ago, but in my constituency, Midlothian North and Musselborough, the aftermath lives on to this very day. It is hard to adequately convey the economic devastation and social unraveling, which is the response to the minor strike that was created. A whole culture and way of life was destroyed. In every newc and cranny of my constituency, you are served as reminders of our industrial mining past, from the National Mining Museum of Scotland itself, to memorials in our streets and parks, to the very street names and to the minor's welfare clubs. Minor strikes are not just another topic for the history books, but serve as an important reminder to what many in Scotland went through and the Margaret Thatcher's draconian role. The bloody-minded determination to destroy the miners as a political and economic presence was overwhelming in its blind focus. Many of the miners involved, of course, have now passed on, as age takes its toll. But even today, when I speak to ex-miners and their families, the strikes remain raw and divisive in our communities. Families remain divided, with feelings running high between those who were on strike and those who chose a different path. The two super pits, Bilson Glen and Moncton Hall, were located in what is in my constituency today. At their peak, both had 1,800 workers employed at each pit, and both saw violence flare frequently during the 84-85 strike. There is little doubt in my mind that mining was an industry that had seen its heyday. It was in decline. However, the brittle confrontational approach taken by Thatcher and her Tory Government were unforgivable. Clashes between striking miners and police were unnecessary. Now that there was truly at blame, each side was trapped or coerced into actions, which they did not plan to be part of. Confrontation was never the way forward, but Thatcher did not want to find a negotiated way forward. She wanted to win. That is why the miners' pardon bill is so important to our mining communities. It brings justice to those who have faced stigma, wipes out the stain of law-breaking for so many decent miners who were simply caught up in the unholy mess, but did not truly realise the consequences that this would have on them. It is about restoring dignity to those convicted, and I hope that a sense of closure to the lingering feelings of injustice. However, it is important that we get this bill right. In order to be pardoned, criteria A or criteria B set out in the bill must be met. Information regarding meeting the criteria must be presented clearly to ensure that people understand what this pardon entails and to further ensure that there is no confusion as to who this pardon applies to. I am proud that this is the first Government in the UK to propose a bill such as this. It is an opportunity for the UK Government to follow in the steps of the Scottish Government. The Tory Government not only has a chance to extend this pardon to miners in other parts of the UK, but to address the concerns raised about political interference, policing, fairness and how the courts dealt with miners who were accused of crimes resulting from the strikes. I believe that a full public inquiry by the UK Government is required. I also recognise that many of the issues around the potential for financial compensation are reserved to the UK Government. We call for this to be reviewed as part of the inquiry if Westminster agrees to address this important issue on behalf of miners elsewhere in the UK. To bring us to the conclusion, the minds may have closed, but the legacy in those mining communities remains here in Scotland. This bill has justice and fairness at its heart and rights are wrong but should never have happened. There should be no delay in preventing this Parliament from doing just that by supporting the general principles of this bill. I thank the miners, family members and friends who spoke so movingly at the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee in recent months. Please know that your voices have been heard. I hope that we can do justice to them. On behalf of the Scottish Greens, I welcome this bill. It is a wholehearted welcome, but one tinged with sadness. This legislation ought to be UK-wide, ought to represent an apology by those properly accountable and ought to have come long ago, at a time when it would have provided real redress to those so bitterly wounded by this deep injustice. However, we are present in this moment in this place and it is both our duty and our privilege to stand and to speak once again for the miners. It may be that this bill is a gesture, but gestures do matter. They are how we as human beings communicate what is important to us, what we feel and what we share. The miners' strike defined a generation. It was ruthlessly exploited by Margaret Thatcher for her ideological war on the trade union movement, but for the workers and communities caught up in this dispute it was a devastating era of violence, betrayal and division. Local police officers found themselves facing down family members and friends, creating wounds that in some cases never healed. This bill matters because it acknowledges the past, the harm that has been done, some deliberate, some inadvertent, careless or callous, poisoned by a toxic and persistent ideology. We do not have to be personally or institutionally culpable to share as a society a common responsibility to address that harm. That is true of many historical and continuing injustices, including colonialism and fossil fuel capitalism, and it is true of oppressions locally as well as globally. Scotland's era of coal is over, but the scars from the strikes are still raw in our communities. This bill recognises the continuing hurt suffered by miners, their families and friends. This kind of suffering, lives, health, relationships, reputations and livelihoods broken or jeopardised, does not go away. The bill and the discussions that we have had about it remind us, and sadly we need reminding, that policing by consent must not be a comfortable fiction but a foundational reality. We are also reminded by the discussion of this bill of the importance of trade union solidarity. Trade unions exist to protect their workers and will rightly protect jobs, terms and conditions whenever they can. We must allow that right to be exercised without fear or violence. That means we as leaders and all those who are employers must remember the obligations that we have to employees, something that the bosses of P&O would have done well to remember recently. While the collective and posthumous pardon this bill seeks to offer is welcome, we must, as we remember and look back on the events and actions that made this bill necessary, learn from the mistakes that were made and pledge to never repeat them. Mining communities were left with no source of hope. Where was the rebuilding, the investment in those areas in their communities' assets as the mines were closed? Where was the job creation and the retraining for people left on the industrial scrap heap? There was none. In fact, quite the opposite. At the time it was engineered, so many of these workers would never work again. That is a serious dereliction of duty by any Government, and the Conservatives should hang their heads in shame for willingly creating whole communities of people unable to work. They were the victims of Government ideology, which puts markets before lives and we cannot allow that to happen again. So we need to ensure that, as we begin the next energy transition that we must undertake, we need a strategic approach, one that recognises industries in decline and invests in alternative jobs and retraining before crisis point. To tell workers in these industries that their job is forever is a pernicious lie. As we move beyond the era of high-carbon industries, as we must to survive, further industrial decline must be pre-empted with investment in a just transition, in community assets and an alternative future. It is up to us to bring hope. Whilst we still have work to do on this bill, on scope, on financial redress, on public inquiries and so on, that we will all vote for this bill at the stage that one vote later today should, I hope, I trust, give all of us some hope. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. First, I thank the miners and their families who made the privilege to meet earlier today to hear, and unfortunately I probably talk too much as usual. My interest in this matter stems not only from my memories of 40 years ago and the images of police and horseback charging into lines of demonstrating miners, but from having the National Mining Museum of Scotland in my constituency in Grange with its neat lines of miners' cottages, First Street, Second Street, Third Street and so on, also in Gore Bridge to the memorial to miners who have lost their lives over the years of the pits and in Pericook, the Shotts Town Miner's Welfare Club. All of that means that the landscape and sense of community of Scotland's mining past is literally never out of my sight. However, there is also my mother, a darbyshire woman, daughter of a Welsh miner who died prematurely from an injury sustained in the pit. She never let us forget the hardships of the job and the fact that he left behind 10 orphan children, including my mother. I also witness daily on the news bulletins the events of 1984-85 and the severity of Thatcher's assaults on the mining communities and the union leadership taking on the Tory Government when the coal was stockpiled high. None of that prepared me for mass policing and the sight of them charging on horseback into men and women defending their communities and their livelihoods, with police often shipped in from outside communities because they did not use the local police. During the strike, as someone said, 1,300 or more were charged and some over 400 were convicted, usually of breach of the peace or obstructing the police. Conviction that, as has been said, stands to this day, so the bill is much to be welcomed, but a pardon does not remove from the record note of the conviction. I will come to that later. Yet a blanket pardon symbolic and collective? Yes, absolutely. I note the comments that the Scottish Government should try to identify individuals or surviving members that the miners might qualify and they need a publicity campaign to make sure that they are aware of their rights and that they are doing this partly through the NUM. I note also that the Scottish Government has recognised that its miners' wives and families were directly involved in the dispute and they may have received convictions and they perhaps should be encompassed and glad that door is open. I note that there is currently a limit on the locus. The locus is extremely difficult and it is defined currently and the Law Society has said that other similar gathering is difficult. Thompson Solister saying that activities that are connected with the miners' strike is quite broad, so that has to be really teased out, but I do listen carefully to the fact that it should not just be limited to the picket line and travelling to the picket line. I certainly agree that the UK must hold an inquiry into all that took place, and in particular whether there was political interference in policing and the judiciary. I am going to come to compensation because I am hugely sympathetic to what the member had to say. The problem is that if we do out of our budget here, as we know, this comes out of the budgets that keep our health service, our education and our justice going. I look at the fact to the member that £4.4 billion has been taken from the miners' pension fund by the UK Government without them putting a penny in, and we must not let the UK Government off the hook either with that or the responsibility here to pay out for their fault. Yes, I certainly will. Many of us spoke in a member's debate, which I think that Christine Graham brought to this Parliament on the subject of the robbery of the miners' pension scheme by the UK Treasury, so she has our whole hearted support on that. However, the question that she has got to ask herself is if we do not make any provision to redress the hardship that has been inflicted on these mining communities, does she really expect Pretty Patel and Boris Johnson to do it, because I do not? I am with you so much of the way, but my reluctance here is to say not that they do not deserve it, not that they should not be getting it, but we would have to take it from the budgets that deliver our health service, that deliver education, to pay for something that was wholly the political fault of a UK Government. That is the issue that I take. Where is the money coming from, from other ordinary people's pockets and services? I want to finish on this very briefly, but I should be very right. I know that the historical sexual offences pardons and disregard Bill had policy objectives very similar to that, although we are talking about something that was once illegal, then becoming legal. However, there was a second condition in there, and I have not seen this in this Bill. I know that that Bill put into place a scheme to enable a person who has been convicted of a historical sexual offence to apply to have that conviction disregarded, so that it would never be disclosed, as, for example, part of an enhanced disclosure check. That brings me observations of the law society of this regard, because they also notice that the Bill specifically stresses that a pardon will not affect any conviction or sentence, nor will it give rise to any right or entitlement or liability. There is an issue. People think that, perhaps, by getting granted this omnipresent pardon that this will expunge the conviction from the record, it will not. I want to ask the Scottish Government if this Bill does not expunge the conviction and it managed in the previous one with a similar omnibus pardon, why can't we put something in this Bill so that Miners can then have, on the record, above that note that they have now been granted a pardon? I would like to begin by giving special thanks to my party colleague Richard Leonard, who has gone above and beyond to keep the need for a bill of this sort in the public eye and to achieve a historic justice for the Miners. Despite their vast contribution to the culture and the economy of this country, they remain underappreciated and, in many cases, criminalised simply for standing up for their right to a livelihood. I can also bring solidarity from Pam Duncan Glancy, who hopes to close the debate for us but is, in fact, isolating. What happened to the Miners must never happen again, but I fear that, given the abnormal treatment of the PNO workers in recent weeks, we are only stepping backwards as a country in terms of labour relations, which is all the more reason to set such a president with this Bill. The legacy of the Miner strike and the way workers and their families were treated still lives long in the memories of many people in my home region of Ayrshire, as other members have mentioned in their regions. You simply cannot grow up here without knowing about how those communities were treated and the painful experiences that they suffered, and that is true of my generation who saw it first hand and younger people coming up today. It is important to remember that this was a strike and a movement that affected so many parts of the UK, and the solidarity that was shared amongst those communities from South Yorkshire to Fife equally remains to this day. Taking the step to recognise that injustice will be well received in many parts of this island, I can assure you. However, as long as that prolonged injustice remains in place, I will see it as a key part of my responsibility to ensure that it is addressed. As such, while in general my party and I agree with the principles of this Bill, there is still a lot missing and a lot of work to be done. I have to ask why does the Bill not cover those who stood in solidarity with the Miners, who should be treated with respect and admiration for what they did for their communities? They should not simply be written out of history. Further and perhaps most importantly of all, why does the Bill not include a provision for compensation? Surely that is a basic common sense. It was bad enough that those workers had their jobs torn away for them, but to be looked up for it and received nothing in return is truly unacceptable. I applaud the fact that the Scottish Government is finally willing to take the credit for pardoning the Miners, but they should equally be prepared to make that clear through adequate compensation, as any other victim might expect. I do not think that the excuse of this Parliament not existing at the time can be countenance. It is a cheap get-out, and if Scotland is truly to set an example for the UK and beyond, here is a perfect opportunity for it to do so. As the Bill progresses, my party will demand that the scope is widened to include all of the aforementioned. Apology without serious accountability and compensation is not worth the name. The Parliament must support an automatic pardon, it is the decent and human thing to do, and I believe that the public would expect no less. I will close by reiterating that the Scottish Labour Bill has heartedly supported many of the principles of the Miners strike, pardon the Scotland Bill, but our work has just begun. The Bill should be introduced as a testament to all those who have fought this historic, historic injustice committed during the strike, not just so that they can begin to get the justice that they deserve, but as a marker to future generations that we will not allow in our name again. However, as I have said, the Bill, as it stands, does not go far enough. Action is required to redress the sins of the past and serious compensation is needed. Those unfair convictions cause people in so many different ways, and while money cannot entirely solve those wounds, it goes some way to qualifying the reality of the pain that was felt by so many in those days. It is the least we can do, it is the least that this Parliament can do. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am delighted to be closing this stage 1 debate today for the Scottish Conservatives. The importance of this pardon is clear from the presence in the gallery and when I met this morning with the Miners and their families and the contributions from the members across this chamber, such as my colleague Russell Findlay, who pointed out that the men and women here today are not criminals. They were hardworking people who took great pride in their jobs and in their communities. Chris Brown acknowledged the powerful testimonies that were heard first hand from witnesses and that the minor strikes were divisive in many ways. Joe Fitzpatrick also mentioned the evidence being invaluable from witnesses in the committee. He also highlighted the impact from the minor strike being felt generations on in communities and that this bill should not be delayed. Richard Leonard highlighted to do the right thing in this Parliament and understand the past and put the wrongs to rights. Annabella Ewing mentioned that she was pleased to see the bill reach this point. Beyond doubt, the scars are felt deep in her community and across Scotland. Fiona Hyslop spoke as a granddaughter of a minor and stressed that the minor's communities experienced many health, poverty and many more problems and still remain after decades. Sarah Boyack mentioned how the minor strike impacted on their lives and wellbeing, so let's make sure that the bill goes through as it's been four decades. Colin Beattie said that the strikes still remain raw and divisive in the communities and there must be a sense of closure. Maggie Chapman spoke about how the bill matters and that the voices have been heard and hope that this bill brings some kind of justice. Christine Grahame spoke about her personal experience on how her family was affected. Let's not forget that the minor strike was one of the most powerful and divisive industrial disputes in living memory and for many of these memories are still raw, as we have heard. I was only a very young girl, just like my colleague Russell Finlay said, when the strikes took place. Of course, I have seen the news coverage and heard about the strikes, but what I never knew was the extent to which it divided society. However, I now sit on the Equalities and Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee and I have had the privilege to listen first hand to the voices of the people who stood on both sides and have learned a great deal about the incalculable damage that has been done. I would like to extend my gratitude to all those who came forward to share their personal experiences and to acknowledge those who are no longer with us but who this pardon will apply to no less. As my colleague Alexandra Stewart said, this bill is symbolic and I believe that it will go a long way in bringing reconciliation between those who were fighting to protect their jobs and their livelihoods and those who were upholding the law in circumstances that they had never encountered before. As one witness pointed out, we may never know the full consequences of this strike. However, we do know enough to say that some of the convictions were unjust. I will therefore be pleased to support the general principles of the bill at decision time today to provide an automatic pardon for the minors who were convicted of certain offences relating to 1984 to 1985 minor strikes. As many colleagues and the Scottish Government rightly point out, evidence of convictions from the strikes are sparse, with surviving police and quote records few and far between. Therefore, in this instance, we believe that an automatic pardon will be the most effective way of ensuring justice for those affected. Our scrutiny of the bill pertain to many evidence sessions with witnesses, falling which discussions extended to the scope of the offences included in the pardon. The issue of scope is one that we have heard about today several times across the chamber, and it is important that this issue is considered very carefully. There is a balance to be struck on this issue, and we will work with the Scottish Government to ensure that the scope of the bill includes everything that should be pardoned without overreaching. However, as I said earlier, there were residual impacts from the dispute that ran into other aspects of life. Witnesses from both sides talked about the way that disputes tore families apart, and so the secondary impacts are evident. We do not require statistics to back this up. Once questioned, some witnesses felt that the bill should provide compensation payment for those who fall within the scope of the pardon, and that is mentioned across the chamber today. However, I agree with the committee's overall findings that such a move is not within the remit of the pardon, which is largely symbolic and aims for reconciliation, not compensation, and further to that, the required evidence would be difficult and impartial to obtain, and would only serve to delay this much-needed pardon that has been echoed in this chamber today, that we must not delay this pardon. In conclusion, the Scottish Conservatives are satisfied with the general principles of the bill and believe that it will go a long way in healing the divisions of the past, even if, for many of those affected, it will not be enough to fully heal those wounds. We believe, firstly, that it is only the right that individuals were unfairly convicted to receive a pardon. Secondly, the scope of the pardon remains limited to how it is presented in the bill. Last but not least, the Scottish Government carefully examined the scope of the offences included in the bill and to ensure that they strike a fair balance and seek to bring about reconciliation. I now call on the cabinet secretary to wind up the debate for around about seven minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I thank all the members that have contributed to this afternoon's debate. It has been an interesting debate, often constructive and sometimes challenging, as you'd expect, not least given the subject matter. I am encouraged by the lead committee's endorsements of the bill's general principles and the fact that those have been reflected in the debate that we've just had. I recognise the debate together with the stage where reporters covered a broad range of fundamental questions, things like, does the pardon cover the right people? Does the pardon cover the right offences? Does the bill cover the right circumstances where such offences were considered to take place? Or how do we best ensure that those who are most likely to benefit are aware of the pardon? Does the bill deliver the objectives that this Parliament seeks? What can be done to support former mining communities as a legacy of the strike and the demise of the coal mining industry? What can be done collectively to press the UK Government to consider undertaking a full UK-wide inquiry into the events of the strike? It would be very unusual at stage 1 for any bill to achieve complete consensus, and it seems unlikely that when we get to the end of this bill we will have that consensus, which is unfortunate, but I am heartened to see at least so much support and principle for the pardon which the bill seeks to deliver. I have listened very carefully to the points that have been raised in the debate and I welcome the opportunity now to address some of those. First of all, some excellent contributions from the convener of the committee, Jovis Patrick, from Alexander Stewart. Richard Leonard will come back to his contribution in a second of a can. Also from Annabel Ewing, who talked about the effect in her community. Russell Finlay, who mentioned the fact, he had, as a trade unionist, been on strike too, as I have been, as many members will have been, but none of us will have seen the impact when striking that this strike had on the people directly involved in it. Fiona Hyslop gave us a very good idea of how this reaches into virtually every family, as did Christine Grahame, virtually every family in Scotland because of the prevalence of mining throughout her communities. Sarah Boyack, Maggie Chapman and, as I have said, Christine Grahame also work very powerfully. Pam Gosall, of course, mentioned the extent to which this is a symbolic burden. The reasons for that are laid out by the committee, which we ask to look at this, because that can be done most easily and most quickly. It can make sure that everybody that needs to be included can be included, without them having to go through an application process. That was the rationale behind what we did. Come back to Richard Leonard's contribution. It was basically a broad-based attack on the Scottish Government that leaves an overall consensus, as I say, looking highly unlikely, which is unfortunate. In Wales last week, I spoke to a number of representatives of the Welsh Assembly who were hearing about this for the first time. We thought that this was a fantastic initiative. We are also very keen, as I wrongly felt, that we would see a consensus in Scotland on this, because it has a big effect. The lack of consensus or the extent to which we accuse each other of havering or whatever it is will undermine the effect of the pardon, and I think that that would be most unfortunate. It may well be the case that we are the only administration in the UK to agree on this automatic pardon. It will be unfortunate to say at least if the impact of the pardon is undermined by divisions between the parties in the chamber, but that may be inevitable, and I accept that to be the case. On the issue of compensation, the simple fact is—and this can be wished away, and it is anything but havering—that, in terms of employment practices and pensions, one of the factors that has been mentioned by a number of members is the political direction of the strike itself and the way in which it was managed, which I will remember, as I say, as a student in 1984, in support of the strike, and also the political direction for the NUN, for the NCB as well. We do not have those records. We have no way of getting that information, and it is really important that the reserve powers, which would be necessary, to validate and approve compensation payments, are brought to bear in relation to that. It is also true to say that, in a number of other areas, I am more than willing to listen to the suggestions both of the committee and of a number of members when they spoke. I should say that the offences that we seek to cover will cover 95 per cent of the convictions, the breach of the peace and so on. They will cover 95 per cent of the convictions, but I am aware that there are one or two other areas that people might want to look at, and I am more than happy to look at that as we take things forward. As I said, it was generally a very good debate. Obviously, people feel very strongly about this, and that just shows the fact that something that happened 40 years ago still has the resonance today, which is exemplified by the passion with which Members spoke. I do recognise, of course, that we might not entirely agree on various aspects of this, or even some of the points that have been made, but I do know as well that those will often be well intentioned, and I hope that whatever divides us, there will be general support for the pardon in principle. The way that the pardon is being done, as has been mentioned, has gone further than the committee. However, the committee had in mind the idea—I am talking about the end-end committee—that it should be as easy as possible for those who would benefit from a pardon, but it really rules out the idea of lengthy application processes. It does, as the committee of this Parliament pointed out, mean that we have to take every effort to make sure that people are aware of this pardon, and we have undertaken to make sure that that will happen. If there are suggestions from other members or the committee as to how we can go further in relation to that, I am more than willing to listen to that. Looking ahead, the challenge for us all will be in refining the detail of the bill in ways that enhance it, rather than dilute its main purpose. Its purpose, of course, is to try to restore dignity to the former members, to help to hear the long-standing wounds in our many communities. I am thinking particularly of those miners, and we will all know individuals who would have had a conviction that had never been in trouble with a law before. We never have thought themselves to be having a conviction of this type, and we have felt wrongly the sense of shame from having that conviction over the years. That is what the bill is seeking to address. It is about reconciliation. We should keep in view both the striking miners who fought passionately for their livelihoods as did their communities and those who supported them, but also the police officers who were doing their job in very difficult circumstances in seeking to uphold the law. If the Parliament is content to approve the principles of the bill, then, as I say, I will work with the committee and other members as best I can to ensure that the bill achieves what we all want it to achieve. I have also sought to get agreement on those issues where there is still some division amongst us. I would very much like, even if it is not possible, to get unanimity as far as possible in relation to this, but that will be, obviously, for the Parliament to decide. This is an important bill that allows Scotland to lead the way in publicly acknowledging the hardship endured in many communities all those years ago, and in taking action to restore the dignity so deserved for former miners. I commend the motion. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much indeed, Cabinet Secretary. That concludes the debate on the miners' strike part in Scotland Bill. It is time to move on to the next item of business, but the way we are brief paused before we do so.