 Fy enw i ddod i ddau'r 13 o gyflawni o sefyllai sciwys y Prif Weinidog, amgylchedd a cyflawni ddau cyngor, cymdeithasol yn Gyllid Gwylfa SiM. Nawr hwnna fyddoddiwr neu rydw i ddedeudio ddangosr Botwg Cymru gyda'r corwctwiol gylawni, a eto gyda'r Gwylfa SiM. Ddew i ddweud i ddaw i ddau'r cyffredinol yn gyflodwyd. Fy enw i ddweud i ddau'r cyffredinol, gallwm iddyn nhw nid, mynd i ddaw i ddau cyffredinol Rydym nhw staff yn engineeringlysh minbyr Spectac ar dda wedi sefferhau'r newid i ddawιαu! I will take the stage to slowly so that we have time to manage the process properly. I remind the cabinet secretary's officials that they cannot speak during this stage, but they can communicate with the cabinet secretary directly. I can ask all members around the table and in the gallery to please make sure that any electronic devices are on silent mode, so, hopefully, that's all clear, and then we shall make a start with the stage 2. At introduction, the Presiding Officer determined that a financial resolution was not required for this bill. Under rules 9.12.6C, the Presiding Officer has determined that the costs associated with amendment 16 would in themselves exceed the current threshold for a bill to require a financial resolution. Therefore, in terms of stage 2 proceedings, amendment 16 may be debated but may not be agreed to in the absence of a financial resolution. That said, I call amendments 1 in the name of the cabinet secretary, grouped with the amendments as shown in the groupings. Cabinet secretary, to move amendment 1 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thank you, convener. My amendments 1, 4, 6, 7 and 8, when taken together, have the intention to try and broaden eligibility for the pardon to a person convicted for a qualifying offence related to the strike and meeting the other conditions of eligibility who, at the time of such an offence being committed, was a minor or lived in the same household as a minor. A definition of a minor is already given under section 4 of the bill. I should say in doing this and with some of the other amendments, convener, that the attempt is trying to be made to reconcile and address the issues that this committee have raised previously and to stay true to the original spirit of reconciliation, which the committee convened by John Scott spoke of. We have listened to what both his committee and his committee have said. Amendment 1 amends section 1 of the bill so that the reference to a minor is replaced by the term qualifying individual. This amendment is linked to amendment 4, which introduces a definition of what is meant by qualifying individual. Amendment 4 is a principle amendment in the group and would broaden eligibility to those close enough to be directly affected by the strike and its impact on a mining household of which they were parked. That means such as spouses, dependents and other family members. Amendment 6 defines what is meant by household. Household means a group of people living together as a family or other unit whether or not they are related in a private dwelling who share living accommodation and cooking facilities with a minor, as is currently defined under the bill, and where such a dwelling was there only or main residence. Amendment 7 makes a consequential amendment to the definition of minor in section 4 of the bill. Amendment 8 makes a consequential change to the long title of the bill. Ultimately, this set of amendments, as I say, convener, in my name, is intended to respond positively to the stage 1 report recommendation that the Scottish Government should consider extending the range of people who can qualify for the pardon, particularly in relation to family members of minors. I will now go on, if it is okay, convener, to amendments 4A and 13. I will now turn to Pam Duncan-Glancy's amendment 4A, which seeks to amend my own amendment 4 so that the proposed reference to members of the same household as is replaced by the term family member of. Amendment 4A is linked to amendment 13, which introduces a definition of what is meant by family member. Although I recognise the intention of the member's amendments given the recommendation by the committee in its stage 1 report, I look forward to hearing the member's explanation shortly why it should be the definition that is put forward by her as preferable to the definition that I put forward, which is of a household member. I have some concerns around the amendment. The definition, as proposed by the member, requires further consideration at least in that it would seek to extend eligibility to a considerable number of family members of a minor. There is, in my view, a risk here that this amendment could have an unintended consequence of diluting the effect of the pardon for minors, and if the committee were to agree to my amendment for the immediate members of their households, who were arguably the people most likely to be directly affected by the impact that the strike had on that household. I would sound the note of caution in the broader formulation of the family connection that the member suggests. Amendment 13 is also not consistent in its treatment of different family members. For example, should sibling include half sibling and step sibling, step parent would require a legal marriage and would not cover the living partner of a parent. Should step grandchildren be included, does cousin mean first cousin or second cousin is also wise cousin included but not uncle, aunt, niece or nephew? The member's amendment also covers an individual and a civil partnership with a minor, but civil partnerships did not exist at the time of the strike. The member's definition of family member only includes this list, so it is not clear from the amendment how much further family member would extend. Perhaps it would be interesting to hear the member's views if she is able to elaborate on that. Turning now to amendment 4b, which seeks to amend 4b—well, I have covered it, I think, a sense of that point. I recognise the intention of the member's amendments given the recommendation by the committee on the quality hearing, the member's reasoning as to why those amendments are considered to be more appropriate. I also note that the definition of supporter only includes the categories of people listed. It is not limited to those groups and so, again, it can be very hard for an individual to determine just how far eligibility for the partner would extend if those amendments are accepted. As I said previously, convener, to the committee, there is a real need for clarity so that those who are eligible for the pardon know that they are eligible and that it is straightforward and that it is not diluted to negate its impact for minors. There is a risk—it could be argued—a greater risk that the amendment could have that unintended consequence of diluting the effects of the pardon for minors and those closest to them. Again, I would send a note of caution and, with that, convener, I am happy to move amendment 1. I now ask Pam Duncan-Glass to speak to amendment 4A and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener, and good morning to the committee, to the cabinet secretary and to all those who have joined us in the gallery today. I will start by moving the amendments in my name, in case I forget at the end, so I move amendment 4A for B1314 in this group. I will call other amendments later in the proceedings for her to move or not move about that. Thank you, convener, for that clarity. I thought it better be belts and braces, but thank you very much for that. I will cover some of the points that the cabinet secretary has raised, because a number of those are very legitimate concerns. I would be willing to work with the Government at stage 3 to tidy up some of those, providing that we could address the intention of what I was hoping to do with the amendments. The strike, as is the case for many of us in this room, was a feature in our household. I was quite young, I think—it was about three or four at the time. What it did for miners and their allies was always spoken about in our home as an example of workers who were being maltreated and who should not have to fear for their livelihoods or being criminalised just for standing up for workers' rights. I would have stood in solidarity with them then, as I would now. We can all agree that they were treated awfully. The right to protest, to organise, to rise up and to give workers a voice must always be protected, then, now and always. That is why I stand in solidarity today with those who are striking now, including in colleges, UCUs, the RMT and PNO workers. It is also why I spoke up when Glasgow City Council threatened to bring in agency workers when the cleansing workers went on strike. No intimidation of that sort is acceptable. An attack on one is an attack on us all, and we must always be on the side of workers. During the committee, we heard compelling evidence from miners, which was incredibly, incredibly moving. Communities were ruined, families and friends turned against one another, pensions were lost, jobs were snatched away illegally. We also heard evidence from the police, which, I have to say and put on record, I felt was at odds with the evidence from miners. I found it hard to reconcile that. In short, we welcomed the Government's intention for the bill. We welcomed the pards and, indeed, the extensions that the cabinet secretary's amendments have put forward. We also welcomed the support for things like the coalfield regeneration trust, but, again, note that a number of communities have still not recovered. The amendments in 4A and 4B are in my name, so amendment 13 and amendment 14 are consequentials, and they have definitions in them. I would be more than happy to discuss those definitions in detail, because it certainly was not an intention to exclude some family members in the way that you have described, cabinet secretary. If the definition is something that the Government would be prepared to work on in stage 3, I would be prepared to do that. The reason that 4A and 4B I felt were really important is because it is not just the people who lived in the same household who were affected by the impacts of what happened to miners at the time. It is also their family and their friends and those who stood in solidarity with them. That is why the amendment in my name seeks to broaden that definition from not only just the household but other family members and friends who stood in solidarity. As I said earlier, I was quite young at the time, but if I imagine the way that strikes go today, you bring your households at times, but you also bring your family and friends, your trade union and those who are standing in solidarity with you. That was the intention of both amendment 4A and 4B, and in particular the amendment to include supporters of miners. I think that it is incredibly important that workers know that they can have the support of other people standing in solidarity with them in the future and that they too can be pardoned for their parts and the way that they were treated during the miners' strike. We had persuasive evidence that the strike was particularly difficult for women, for the wives and daughters of miners who took on huge responsibilities during the strike. Far from diluting the cabinet secretary's amendments, I feel that my amendments strengthen it in those regards to broaden the pardon to those people who, too, had their lives completely ruined. The Government's amendment seeks to take into account what the committee has said and we support that and welcome it, but it should be extended to everyone who stood in support of the miners' family or not. We need to send a solid message that this sort of treatment of workers should never be tolerated again. I believe that the amendments in my name do so by broadening the scope of who would be pardoned, and I move the amendments potentially not right now. I welcome the panel and the people who have come into the public gallery. It is good to see folk back in the public gallery after such a long time and a special shout-out. I hope that it does not mind me saying to Willie Dylun from my constituency who has been a real figure, a real stalwart for the mining community in Ockham, Geek and Moody'sburn. I welcome this debate and I really welcome the cabinet secretary responding to the committee's recommendations in broadening the scope of the definition of who would be a qualified individual. It is something that, as Pam Duncan-Glancy said, we heard quite strong and compelling evidence on that. I am very much minded to support the Government's amendment today. I think that it is a major step forward in terms of Pam Duncan-Glancy's amendments. I also support the principle of those, but I do hear what the cabinet secretary said about the difficulties that might be involved in that. To back up what Pam Duncan-Glancy has asked at this stage, when the cabinet secretary is responding for Pam Duncan-Glancy to work with the Government to get into stage 3, as opposed to possibly moving them today, to take them forward into stage 3, might be a sensible solution, but, certainly, the amendments that have been proposed by Keith Brown today are a fantastic step forward and will definitely add value to the bill. I am very happy to be involved in this morning. It is important that we understand the scope of the bill. It is quite a small bill, so it does not give us a huge amount of opportunity to extend it, but I think that what the cabinet secretary has said with a reference to his amendments, when we talk about the extension to household families and also the changes to qualifying individuals, those are recognised and understood, and I would be concurring with the cabinet secretary on those. Pam Duncan-Glancy's, I note what you have said, Pam, but I do believe that there requires further involvement and discussion as to where that can take, and it broadens it to a level that maybe does not encapsulate, so I think that there needs to be more discussion and more dialogue on that going forward into stage 3. I also believe that amendments 6, 7 and 8 that Keith Brown has put forward as the cabinet secretary once again gave us a clearing as to how we would manage that process. At this stage, convener, I would be more than content to accept those amendments at this stage and then progress the others potentially into the next stage of the process so that more clarity could be sought and discussed. Good morning to everybody. Good morning, cabinet secretary. Thank you for being here, and can I make a special good morning and thank you for coming along to those in the gallery today. I would also like to say thank you to all of those who contributed to the work of the committee in drafting the stage 1 report that we discussed in the chamber a few weeks ago. On behalf of the Scottish Greens, like others, I have already mentioned that I really welcome the spill. It is a wholehearted welcome, but I suppose one tent with sadness. I wish that the spill had come years ago, and I wish also that the spill covered the whole of the UK and was not Scotland only. I do hope that other legislatures in the UK follow suit. I agree with comments that others have made around the importance of standing in solidarity with trade unions, with workers on strike, workers seeking to improve conditions for themselves and for those who come after them. I think that the spill allows us to not only express that solidarity, but to take stock of where things have gone wrong in the past. I think that the pardon is in itself very important. On the amendments that we are discussing this morning, I would like to thank the cabinet secretary for the work that I know that he has put into this. We have pushed him into some of those amendments as a committee, and I think that that shows that this has been a really good, positive and constructive discussion. I thank him for those amendments. I am more than happy to support the amendments in the cabinet secretary's name today. I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy for what she said about her. I hope that over the next few weeks we can talk about how we incorporate the spirit of what we are trying to achieve in those amendments at stage 3. However, this morning, I will be supporting the cabinet secretary's amendments. I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy for what she said about the strike. I was not on the pick of line, but I supported the strike as a student by the various means in which students tend to support those things. I represent a constituency that has substantial numbers of ex-miners in it—in fact, some of the most recent ex-miners, because it includes Longanate, or just outside of Longanate, where many people are employed from my constituency. It is also true that I was on strike myself in the 1980s in a different context and I have very much valued the solidarity that we have from other trade unions and other people at the time. Of course, I am very alive to that. I do not think that there is any intention on the part of Pam Duncan-Glancy to try and dilute this. I do think that that is the effect of those amendments, but I know that that is not her intention. I have always believed that it was the miners themselves who were the most disproportionately affected by the stigma, and the often unforeseen consequences are being convicted. It is therefore appropriate, in my view, that it is the miners who should feel pardoned if they consider that the eligibility criteria have been met. That applies in my view to the loved ones of those miners, sadly no longer with us, who could be pardoned posthumously. I have extended, as Maggie Chapman says, the categories of people who listen to what the committee has had to say. I do believe that extending it in the way that it is proposed would start to dilute it and bring in the degrees of ambiguity that would create uncertainty in the mines, or it may create uncertainty in the mines that are eligible for this parting. It has been mentioned on a number of occasions that there is a lack of surviving records given the passage of time. There are contesting views and accounts in the events that happened during the strike, as the committee knows by hearing very powerful testimonies of those who provided both oral and written evidence at stage 1. The report of the independent review group itself recommended a pardon for the men convicted, and there is no robust evidence that suggests that any woman or young people were convicted. I therefore recognise that there will always be a degree of uncertainty as to how many individuals living in the same household as a miner were convicted during the strike. However, my amendments seek to broaden eligibility to those individuals should they consider that they meet the qualifying criteria for the pardon, and in so doing seek to address one of the concerns that the committee raised with me. I therefore trust that the committee recognises in my own amendments a genuine attempt to broaden eligibility to those who lived in the same household as a miner, close enough to be directly impacted by the strike and who were convicted for actions that they took as a result of that impact. The proposed amendments 4A and 13 highlight the challenge that exists in drafting a definition of family member that works in the context of the strike. I am willing to consider that further. However, I cannot support those amendments in their current format, and I therefore ask the member not to press amendments 4A and 13 at this time. I also think that amendments 4B and 14 require further careful consideration, and I undertake to give those further careful consideration, particularly to clarify and set boundaries on the relationships that are covered by the term supporter. However, at this stage and in their current format, I cannot support those amendments, and I therefore ask the member not to press amendments 4B and 14 at this time. I now move to the question. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. That then takes us on to the second group on qualifying conduct, and I call amendment 2 in the name of the cabinet secretary group with the amendments as shown in the groupings. Please note the procedural information in relation to this group as contained in the groupings. Amendment 3 pre-empts amendment 9, 10, 11, 15 and 12. Therefore, I cannot call amendments 9, 10, 11, 15 or 12 if amendment 3 is agreed. Cabinet secretary, to move amendment 2 and speak to all amendments in the group. Thanks again, convener. My amendments 2 and 3 respond again to the committee's recommendation that the pardon is extended to offences that occurred in the community rather than only in the context of a picket demonstration or similar gathering. Theft is added to the list of qualifying offences by amendment 5, and an additional eligibility criterion is created for this offence. Amendment 3 amends section 1 of the bill by removing existing conditions A and B, and that gets quite complex and apologies for that, convener. It removes existing conditions A and B and replaces them with definitely worded conditions A and B and a new condition C. Replacement condition A broadens the scope of where and the context in which qualifying offences may have taken place under this condition by providing that the conduct that gave rise to such an offence must have occurred whilst an individual was engaged or participating in activity, including activity that is ancillary such as connected travel, either in support or opposition to the minor strike. This replaces a narrower current reference to a picket demonstration or similar gathering. Replacement condition A also specifies that any activity that occurred for a reason unrelated to the minor strike, for example a personal matter, is excluded from the scope of the pardon. Replacement condition B provides that conduct that occurred in response to conduct that meets condition A, if you can follow that, convener, well done, is also included within the scope of the pardon. That is intended to cover both parties to an altercation in the community where, for example, strike-related abusive comments made by one party have responded to with more general threats or insults by another. Replacement condition B also specifies that any activity that occurred for a reason unrelated to the minor strike, for example a personal matter, is excluded from the scope of the pardon. Amendment 3 also introduces new condition C where conduct that gave rise to the offence of theft is covered by the pardon if it occurred because of economic hardship arising from participation whether by the individual or another person in the minor strike. The economic hardship referred to in condition C could have been either the hardship suffered by the person convicted of the theft or the hardship of another person, which was to be relieved by the item that was stolen. For example, a member of a striking minor's household who stole an item in order to relieve the hardship of another member of the household. Amendment 2 amendments section 1 of the bill so that condition A or condition B applies only to the qualifying offences of breach of the peace and offence under section 3 of the Bail, Scotland Act 1980, breach of Bail conditions, and offence under section 41A of the Police Scotland Act 1967, obstructing police, etc. It also amendments section 1 of the bill so that condition C applies only to the qualifying offence of theft. That is required because theft is not activity supporting or opposing the strike or a direct response to such activity and therefore this offence needs a separate criterion. Ultimately, this set of amendments in my name seek to respond positively to the stage one report recommendation that the Scottish Government should consider extending the pardon to convictions for qualifying offences that occurred in mining communities. I turn now to Pam Duncan Glancy's amendment 3A, which seeks to replace the reference to supporting or opposing proposed in my amendment 3 with a broader reference to relating to the strike. I am not sure what the basis is for considering that wording to be preferable to the one that I propose, but I look forward to hearing that explanation. I would sound a note of caution in that the broader formulation of wording that suggested by Pam Duncan Glancy's amendment suggests, in my view, is rather vague and might create uncertainty. In turn, this uncertainty could make it harder for people to self-assess whether they qualify for the pardon. I turn now briefly to amendments 9, 10, 11 and 12, proposed by Alexander Stewart. Taken together, as you have suggested, convener, those amendments seek to remove all references to other similar gatherings from section 1 of the bill, but given that my amendment 3 will remove this wording from the bill, I consider that those amendments are unnecessary. In a similar vein, amendment 15, proposed by Pam Gosell, seeks to remove the references to intended participation or in section 1 3B of the bill. Again, my amendment 3 would remove that wording. I turn now to Richard Leonard's amendment 17, which amends section 2 of the bill to introduce section 7 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875 as a qualifying offence. I fully recognise the member's wish to include in the pardon an offence, which some would argue is not dissimilar to the sort of conduct associated with a breach of the peace. I do continue to have, however, some concerns about the proposal given the violence and intimidation aspects that are mentioned in the 1875 act. A conviction under that act could cover a wide spectrum of behaviour relating to attempting without legal authority to compel another person to support the strike or not to go to work. For example, the use of violence to intimidate another person or their family or damaging their property. I am willing to consider this further. I am happy also to discuss directly with the member the wording and the basis for this amendment. I should say that further anecdotal evidence indicates that there were 16 convictions for all of them in Strathclyde, with a maximum fine of £50. However, for today, I urge members to carefully consider whether such behaviour might cross the line between supporting industrial action and intimidating a minor who chose to work or even that minor's family. I am willing, as I say, to have further discussions with the member on this. With that, I move amendment 2. I now call Pam Duncan-Glancy to speak to amendment 3A and other amendments in the group. I will start with amendment 3A, which is, of course, the amendment in my name. We are very happy to support measures in the bill that broaden the scope of it and, in particular, the offences that are covered by it. However, we believe that, including offences committed by those who opposed the strike on the face of the bill, sends the wrong message and may even go against the spirit of the proposed legislation. We prefer the wording related to recognising that this is what we are trying to do to support minors, not necessarily people who were opposed. We feel that it tidies the bill up in this regard and is more in the spirit of what the bill is intended to do. We are more comfortable with the phrasing of related to, as opposed to supporting or opposing, for those reasons. On amendment 17, in my colleague Richard Leonard's name, we welcome the fact that the Government has extended the convictions to include theft. We believe that amendment 17 would reinforce the Government's extensions on that, and that amendment 18 covers offences that are more related specifically to offences that happened in industrial action. We think that it relates directly to what the bill is seeking to do. On amendments 9, 10, 11, 15 and 12, as they narrow the scope of the bill further, we would not be able to support those amendments. Amendment 9, in my name, looks at the wording of the bill and introduced, and has been indicated that the vagueness of the lack of specifics when it comes to the area of similar gatherings is imprecise and would lead minors and their families to mistakenly believe that they have been pardoned for participating in events that are not covered by the bill, not intended. 10, 11 and 12 are of very similar nature. If I can speak on other amendments within the bill, amendment 2, in the name of Keith Brown, clarifies that theft meets the new conditions under sea and is introduced by amendment 3. Amendment 3, in my name, improves the clarity around who will be pardoned. That also widens the scope of the pardon and will offer a number of individuals. Pamdan Conglansie 3A slightly changes the drafting of amendment 3. It appears to be slightly improving the draft, and we will accept that. Amendment 17, under the name of Richard Leonard, looks at offences under section 7, which involves violence, intimidation and damage to property. I am unhappy and concerned about the process within that, and I would seek to see more clarity on that. When Richard Leonard speaks on that, he might give us that, but at this stage I am a little bit sensitive about how that would manage within the process. I look forward to hearing what the member says. Amendment 5 works with the previous amendments to include theft as a qualifying offence, if committed as a result of economic hardship due to unfair conditions. I ask Pam Gossel to speak to amendment 15 and other amendments in the group. I will support the amendments 2, 3 and 5 in the name of the cabinet secretary. Those amendments improve clarity around who will receive a pardon and when the scope of the pardon appropriately, even if that is only likely to affect a small number of people. The bill, as introduced, includes some ambiguous around the qualifying conduct. I therefore proposed amendment 15, which, alongside amendments 19 and 11 in the name of my colleague Alexandra Stewart, would have removed some of the potential for the bill to be misinterpretated, which could have resulted in an individual mistakenly believing that they have received a pardon. The improved drafting, introduced by amendment 3, in the name of the cabinet secretary, also achieves that goal. I am happy to support that regardless of the preemption and causes to any of the amendment in this group. I ask Richard Leonard to speak to amendments 17 and other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to move this amendment this morning. I also welcome those who have joined us in the public gallery because we are in the end of people's parliament and we need to listen to and reflect the views of the people that send us here. I am moving amendment 17, which seeks to add to those pardoned, those miners convicted of an offence under section 7 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875, which reminds us that this is quite an archaic law. It is a law from Victorian times that goes back to the days when the Prime Minister was Benjamin Disraeli and was brought in following a gas worker strike in 1872. Its intent at the time was to remove the criminal law and the crime of conspiracy from employment relations. The truth of the matter is that it was very rarely used in the 20th century. One of the most notorious occasions when it was used was in connection with the Shrewsbury Pickets in 1973, which included people like Desi Warren and Ricky Tomlinson, who just last year saw their criminal convictions overturned. In the Royal Courts of Justice, which is one of the reasons why many people think that this is quite a discredited piece of legislation, what this amendment I am moving this morning attempts to do is, therefore, to iron out a wrinkle in the legislation. It is to improve the legislation, but it is also, and I am quite clear about this, to tackle an inequality, an injustice and a form of discrimination that appears to have been at work because it was only minors living in the Strathclyde area who were ever convicted under this piece of legislation. As the Cabinet Secretary has said, according to the best records that we have, 16 people were charged with the offencing in Strathclyde and the maximum fine that they received was £50, which suggests that it did not include the acts of violence that have been referred to. The activities that people were involved in who were charged under this legislation would elsewhere, in Fife, in Clackmannshire, in the Lothians, have been convicted under breach of the peace, for which pardons, as a result of this legislation, will be granted. It covers public offences in the same way as breach of the peace does. It is a statutory form of breach of the peace and it is equivalent. The reference has been made to the language in the 1875 act. If you look at the Public Order Act, section 14, it talks of the police being given the right to disperse crowds if intimidation of others with a view to compelling them not to do an act, they have a right to do or to do an act that they have a right not to do. That word compelling is contained in both pieces of legislation. My concern would be that if you were charged under one act in Strathclyde, you would not be covered by the pardon. If you were charged with an equivalent act in another part of Scotland, you would be covered by the pardon. I think that we are all attempting to make sure that this legislation, under some difficult circumstances because it relates to events that happened 37 and 38 years ago, is the best that we can make it. I am clear that this is something that needs to be incorporated in the act because, in my view, it would be irrational and unjust not to include it. I welcome the amendments that have been brought forward, particularly from the cabinet secretary. Those are reflecting what the committee heard in expanding the types of crimes that is good to see that the Government and the cabinet secretary have listened to what the committee said. I want to pay special note to the introduction of new conditions C, which brings real additional value to the legislation, because one of the things that we did here was the financial impact on mining families, miners and, of course, communities. Again, if Willie Rennie does not mind me saying that Moody's Burn is still an example of that, where the community has not fully recovered yet. To see that an individual who perhaps committed a financial crime, to leave financial suffering, is now included in this, is an absolutely fantastic move forward, and I will certainly be supporting that in all the amendments in the Government's name. I know that some of the other amendments that were put forward by Alexander and Pam Gossel are likely to be superseded by Government amendments. I think that the clarity has already been given there by the Government. I also want to say, in terms of Richard Leonard's amendment 17, that I have a lot of sympathy with that, based on what he said there. My constituency would have previously been covered by the old Strathclyde region, so it seems strange and odd that only people in Strathclyde would have been convicted of this offence. I also hear what the cabinet secretary said, and he has made a very clear offer to the member to sit down and work with him on stage 3. When he was making that offer, I could see Richard nodding his head as well. To me, that seems a sensible solution to get a bit more clarity on that, but if it is only folk in Strathclyde that I have been convicted of those offences, I am not happy either. I know that the cabinet secretary will not be. Thank you, and I will move to the cabinet secretary to wind up on the group. When we first proposed the bill, it went further than John Scott's committee recommended in a number of respects. Of course, at this stage, we are going further than the committee suggested in a number of respects, but I have taken to account the committee's view. I do think that there has to be limits to it, because I think that we start to devalue the impact of the pardon, but I would hope that the committee would recognise in my amendments 2 and 3 a genuine attempt to broaden eligibility in a way that is relatively easy for people to understand and also in a way that does not dilute the value of the pardon. I can say that, and it can sound a fairly abstract thing. I do not think that it is to those miners or the families of miners who will get the pardon. I think that they want to know that it has a value that they can identify. I have tried to meet the issues that the committee is concerned about. In amendment 5, I should say that I recognise that the offence of theft, of which I understand that there were only three convictions, was an act of desperation for people who were very hard pressed during the strike. We have changed their view on this. I think that it may have been, I can't say for certain, three women, all in Asia involved in this. I can't say because the records aren't there, but it's not hard to imagine this could have been through economic hardship to look after families, and that's why we have changed our view on that. As I've said, I can't support amendment 3 in its current format, as I believe it would introduce uncertainty. My own amendment 3 makes clear the context of the purpose of the activity a person was engaged in participating in of responding to during the minor strike in personal matters are expressly excluded. I hope that Pam Duncan-Glancy's point about being in support of the strike, but we've discussed this with the NUM and others who are perfectly comfortable with what we propose. If somebody is against the strike, it has to be covered for the same behaviours for those who were for the strike. If we were to have any real attempt at reconciliation, which Pam Duncan-Glancy said in her first contribution, it was a hard thing to do reconciliation. We have to do that, and the NUM is perfectly comfortable with that, for example. I'll listen to the member's explanation. I feel that there is merit in giving it further consideration, but it requires further work ahead of stage 3, so I would ask for that amendment not to be pressed. That's 3A at this time. For the reason set out previously, I would ask Alexander Stewart to withdraw his amendments 9, 10, 11 and 12 if my own amendment 3 is agreed. I think that you've said to be preempted in any event, convener, and for similar reasons, I would ask Pam Duncan-Glancy to withdraw her amendment 15. I think that she's conceded to that point as well, if it's super-serious. I do continue to have some concerns about Richard Leonard's amendment 17, given the aspects pertaining to the use of violence and intimidation, which are mentioned in the 1875 act. I suppose that I'm less concerned about whether it was Benjamin Doe's really that brought in the act as to what actually happened at the time, but maybe to give a little bit of comfort to Alexander Stewart. If you look at the maximum fine of £50, that gives you some indication about the level of fence, especially if you compare it to breaches of the priests and breaches of bail conditions. That seems to suggest that the fences were not as serious as might be construed under the act, but I think that that requires a bit of further work. In relation to Richard Leonard's view, I don't think that we're that far apart on that, and I don't think that there'll be too much difficulty in coming to some agreement. I would ask the member to accept to face value my offer to discuss this in good faith and not to press amendment 17 at this time. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. I call amendment 3, in the name of the cabinet secretary, already debated with amendment 2. Cabinet Secretary to move formally. I point out again that, if amendment 3 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 9, 10, 11, 15 or 12, as they will have been preempted. I call amendment 3A, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, already debated with amendment 2, Pam Duncan-Glancy to move formally. The question is that amendment 3A be agreed to. Are we all agreed? No, that's not agreed. I go to a vote. Those in favour of amendment 3A, please show. Three votes, okay, and those against. It's four votes. Amendment 3A has not been agreed to. We therefore move to, um, not to ask the, sorry move, to question amendment 3A3, which has already been moved by the cabinet secretary. Are we all agreed? amendment 3. Weblet будет agreg 이런하겠습니다. We therefore move on to action section 1. The question is that section 1 be agreed to. Amendment 4, in the name of cabinet secretary, has already debated with amendment 1. eich ddweud yn mynd i ddweud. Amendment 40A yn rhywun pan ddynggan Glancy wedi ar gyfer y Prif Weinidog y Maes Unedd 1, pan ddynggan Glancy yn rhywun mae eich ddweud a gydydd yn rwynt? Rwynt mae'r cwestiynau pedwydol yn ddweud. Y cwestiynau yn ddweud, amser, yn ddweud, mae ei ddweud nodi'r cyarsawer. A ddweud yn ddweud. 1. Am amendment 4b, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, is already debated with amendment 1, Pam Duncan-Glancy, to move or not move. 2. Am amendment 4b, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, is already debated with amendment 1, Pam Duncan-Glancy, to move or not move. 3. Am amendment 4b, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, is already debated with amendment 1, Pam Duncan-Glancy, is already debated with amendment 1, Pam Duncan-Glancy, to move or not move. 4. Am amendment 16, in the name of Richard Leonard, grouped with amendment 18, is already debated the question on it will not be put in the absence of a financial resolution. Richard Leonard to move amendment 16 and speak to both amendments in the group. Thank you convener and I'm pleased to speak this morning to amendment 16 compensation scheme, which seeks to establish a compensation scheme or schemes to make some financial redress to those people pardoned by the bill when it becomes an act. It's been suggested to me that the scheme could cover those arrested, not charged, could cover those arrested and charged, could cover those arrested and charged and convicted, those arrested and charged and convicted and dismissed. The legislation that it stands refers to those people being pardoned who were convicted of course. But the Scott review points out that the estimates, the best estimates that we've got is that 1,400 miners were arrested between March 84 and March 85 that around 500 miners were convicted and we know that 206 miners were sacked as a result of those convictions. Some of those affected because of the passage of time are now deceased, which is why in the amendment it's proposed that there should be a legal representative or an executor, maybe a next of kin who would be eligible for financial redress under a compensation scheme or schemes. The truth of the matter is that many of those who have died without a will and that's why there are some issues around the need for legal representation to be required. The amendment also calls for the rules of a scheme to be laid before the Parliament. I just want to go back to why I think this is important and remind people why we are here and considering this legislation this morning. Today is the 10th of May and on this day in 1984, 290 miners, eight coachloads, were stopped on the A80 at Steps by Strathglide police. They were charged under sections 17 and 41 of the police act, charged with breach of the peace, fingerprinted photograph held in police custody, which is a salutary reminder that many of those held in police stations across Glasgow had never set foot in a police station before, never mind being incarcerated in a cell and many of them never stepped foot in a police station afterwards. This was an extraordinary event and an extraordinary act by Strathglide police at that time. Many of us have heard the harrowing story of Doddie McShane. Doddie took the wrap for a broken window, a crime that he did not commit. As a result, he lost his job. More than that, the late Doddie's son James has testified about visiting his father in jail in Socton as a result of that charge. He movingly tells us that his father was in jail sharing a cell with someone from armed robbery and someone in there for attempted murder. The family and friends of Doddie McShane are with us this morning. Also with us this morning is Jim Teaney, who was on that bus or one of those buses in steps 38 years ago today, but later spent 26 days and nights in Barlinnie and was later sacked and blacklisted. The Scott report, which is the genesis of this legislation, points out that what sets these cases apart in our view is the disproportionality of cumulative impacts caused by dismissal following on from dealings with some aspect of the justice system, especially convictions. The Scott report goes on to say, no one has suggested to us that dismissal was an appropriate, reasonable or measured response to what were commonly relatively minor acts of public disorder punished by modest financial penalties imposed by a court. At the weekend, Mick McGahy's son, himself, a striking minor who was arrested repeatedly and sacked, said this. He said, the miners and their families, the women and children who bore the brunt of what happened, had their future stolen from them. It is only right that they are compensated for that. What was done to those men was one of the worst injustices in Scottish history. Members of this committee and other members of the Scottish Parliament will have received a communication from the National Union of Mine Workers and the Cabinet Secretary has this morning referred to discussions and constructive dialogue that he has had with the National Union of Mine Workers. This is what the NUM is saying about a compensation scheme, a letter by Nicky Wilson, the national president of the National Union of Mine Workers, says this in plain terms. The NUM wants to see compensation paid to miners across the UK. We believe that this bill provides a historic opportunity for Scotland to lead the way by including a compensation scheme for those miners and we will continue to advocate for a public inquiry. It goes on, time is of the essence. Many miners have passed away and time is running out for others who were convicted. We understand the Scottish Government wishes to pass the bill to enact the pardon and is concerned that including a compensation scheme may delay this. The pandemic has demonstrated the speed with which legislation can be enacted when the issue is a thawded priority. We believe that this is the time for priority to be given to those historic wrongs, including a clause in the legislation in support of the establishment of a compensation scheme that would cause no delay and indicate the Government's intention to act in this area. The cabinet secretary at the end of his opening remarks in moving the general principles of the bill at stage 1 said, 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. Recognising the hardship and suffering demands action and not just a symbolic pardon. What I would ask the cabinet secretary to do is to come forward with a financial resolution in time for the stage 3 debate of this bill. He knows and members of the committee know that it is only he that can do that, so I call on him this morning in front of this committee to give an undertaking that he will do that, that he will work with me, will work with the national union of mine workers and others to make sure that Parliament gets a vote on what is seen by many as an otherwise glaring omission from this important piece of legislation. Fulton McGregor I have a great pleasure to speak on this amendment put forward by Richard Leonard. At the outset, I would like to say that there are two broad issues here. There is the bill itself and there is the support of compensation. It is very important, at least for me, but I am sure that all my colleagues have given the evidence that we have heard that we do not conflate those two issues at this point. What I mean by that is to say that I want to leave people who are in the gallery, people who may be watching, and absolutely no doubt whatsoever that I, and I believe that I speak for many of my colleagues here, although they are obviously free to speak for themselves, fully support that miners should be compensated for their wrongs endured. I met a group of miners at Moodiesburn just last Wednesday night, and it was harrowing to hear what they had experienced and what their families had experienced since losing jobs and not having a financial income for a long period of time. I do not think that anybody with a conscience would not support those people being compensated, but that is not the issue here now. I know that Richard Leonard Leonard is not a member of the committee, but he looked at the evidence around compensation a lot. We come up with almost every evidence session. I see that the convener nodded in his head. All of us ask questions around it. We tried to see how it might work. We have come to the conclusion, as people have seen from the report, that this bill is not the place to do it. There are a number of risks attached to it. One is that it could delay the bill for a significant period of time. It is not the main purpose of the bill, and the issue of compensation in itself brings about a whole new legislative framework. We are at the space just now where the pardon is what we are talking about. What I would like to say to the cabinet secretary and the cabinet secretary will be responding to Richard Leonard. We need to be looking at what we can do to make compensation happen if that is via the UK Government, or if it is something following the bill that the Scottish Government can do, what campaigns and processes can be involved in. What I wanted to ask the cabinet secretary in is to sum him up if he would agree to meet me to discuss how that might be moved forward in that way. I think that even in terms of the debate today, we are not going to get to vote on it. The convener should demonstrate to anybody watching the difficulties and complications with that part of it. My colleague Richard Leonard has brought forward an amendment to stage 2 today, and the Presiding Officer has looked at it and deemed that it is not appropriate to take it forward at this stage, because the financial aspects of it through the financial resolution have not been considered, so that in itself should demonstrate how the committee has wrangled with this issue. However, I want to be very clear that there are two separate issues here. There is a bill, which is a bill to pardon miners for the wrongs that they endured, and there is the compensation issue. I do not want it to be conflated. We are not voting on it today anyway, but I am sure that other members are not supportive of compensation. I would like to explore with the cabinet secretary how we might go about achieving this. I recognise why the amendment has been submitted. It is in good faith, I have no doubt, but it does attempt to introduce compensation scheme, which is not the purpose of the bill, and we would only delay its implementation. For those reasons, I would feel unhappy to accept it at this stage. I understand the financial resolutions and the significance that that would impart, but I also recognise that this is a UK-wide issue. At the UK-wide issue, it should be addressed. If compensation is to be addressed, it should be addressed as a UK-wide issue, and not through this bill at this stage. I want to be in support of this amendment, and I understand that it will not go to a vote today, but I reiterate my colleague Richard Lennon's calls to the cabinet secretary to produce a financial resolution ahead of stage 3. While my colleague Fulton MacGregor notes that the Presiding Officer has said that we cannot vote on this amendment today, the Presiding Officer did not say that the bill was not the place to include compensation. The Presiding Officer said that, because there was not a financial resolution, we could not do it. The reason that there is not a financial resolution is not because the bill is not competent to consider that, but because the Government did not produce one. The Government did not produce one because it has said up until now that financial compensation would be the responsibility of a different Government. I honestly think that this is an example of putting our money where our mouth is. If we think that this Parliament can offer the pardon to minors that they deserve, then we also must agree that it has the competency to pay them compensation, because if it does not have the competency to do that, what competency does it have for the pardon? I think that the two must go together. I do not want to delay this bill. I know that the time is of the essence with it, but I reiterate my colleague Richard Leonard's points about the speed at which legislation can be brought through and progressed when the Government wants to do so. We have shown that during the Covid pandemic. We have seen it in various other examples, the Carers Alliance supplement bill being one. There are examples of how we can do this, so I urge the Government to reconsider doing so. Finally, on my colleague Alexander Stewart's comments about this being for the UK Government, I would love to see more minors pardoned and therefore this has other due restrictions, but this is a bill of the Scottish Parliament and it is a bill to recognise the injustice that minors felt then. The injustice was at the hands of, as we know, the police, the sheriffs, the justice system and, otherwise, all of which were separate legal systems in Scotland at the time for which the Scottish Parliament assumed responsibility after. I do not think that it is sufficient to say that this Parliament does not have the competency to do so. I urge the Government to seriously consider the financial resolution that would be required, so that, at least if it does not necessarily believe that compensation should be put forward. I think that colleagues do that, but if they do not believe that it should be at this point that Parliament can make that decision for itself at stage 3. Thanks, convener, and just in case I forget, I am more than happy to meet the member to discuss this post the bill and, indeed, with other members that may be interested in seeing how we can better prosecute the case for compensation from the UK Government. I hope that, in doing that and having that discussion, it will be possible for us to try and reach some kind of consensus and unanimity. I think that it is, in my view, really important to the former minors that I have spoken to, that the Parliament does speak with one voice in relation to this, even if we appear to have a difference of opinion here. I will do what I can to explain why I have the view that I have. First of all, I do recognise that many minors in their families suffered terrible hardship as a result of taking part in the strike, and not just that, but that, even now, many have not recovered, for those who are still living, not recovered from the effects of that strike. Indeed, their subsequent generations have not recovered from the effect of that strike, either on their families or their communities. I understand that point, and I think that it is absolutely right that compensation is paid in relation to that. I will explain the reasons why I think that the bill is not the right place to do that. I would say that it is not for some of the reasons that have been mentioned. I do not think that I have advanced some of those reasons that have been mentioned. I agree that it should be paid. The bill is not the place, and it is not just my view. That is the view of this committee, that is the view of John Scott's review as well. He was for a pardon that would provide reconciliation, would be automatic, would be as easy as possible for people to assume, and you do complicate that if you try to graft in, at a late stage, a compensation scheme. It is not so much, as members have said, about the time that it would take to bring legislation. It is both the time that it would take to put together a proper compensation scheme and also the effect that it would have on people getting the pardons to which I think they should be entitled. Obviously, the amendment seeks that some form of compensation be made by the Scottish Government to miners who qualify for the pardon. It does not specify—I have got to speak to the amendment, although it has not been voted on today, that is what is in front of us. It does not specify what is being compensated for, nor does it specify an amount to be paid or the basis of calculating such an amount. Therefore, I have concerns about the lack of specificity in the proposed provisions, but I have other concerns as well. It does not provide the means to compensate miners for the hardships that they endured in a financial sense. The whole point of the bill is a symbolic, collective and automatic pardon, and it is focused on reconciliation rather than compensation. That is not to say that compensation is wrong, just that this is not the place for it. You will undermine the fact that it is symbolic, that it is collective, because, as I will go on to explain, it will divide miners from miners who qualify as who does not, and that it will not be automatic. A compensation scheme would not be consistent with the proposal to self-assess eligibility for the pardon. That is what we are asking people to do. To look at what the pardon passes and say I am entitled to that pardon and I should get it. That would undermine that. It would have the potential to create significant practical differences. As the committee highlighted in its stage 1 report, it would be complex to administer. If anybody can point me to a compensation scheme that this pardon has approved, which is not complex to administer, it does not require a substantial bureaucracy, it does not require an application process and I would be happy to listen to that. We would require qualified people to assess whether applicants would qualify for the pardon. As we know, the evidence for a conviction and under the circumstances prescribing the bill, it will be difficult for applicants to find that evidence given the passage of time. That is why the bill does not propose an application scheme for the pardon, because we know how difficult that would be, instead it is for the individual to self-assess. Richard Leonard mentioned the NUM. I said that I had reached agreement with the NUM, or they were in agreement with our proposal in relation to a previous amendment. I made no mention on the compensation scheme. I had a very cordial discussion. I had known that he will listen for many years. It is a straightforward consideration. We have different points of view. He made the point to me, since it has been asked, that why was this pardon and compensation not approved during the 13 years of a Labour Government? Why was the Miner's Pension Fund taking lost billions of pounds at the hands of successive Governments who hoovered that money that belonged to the Miner's Pension Fund? Those things cannot be addressed in this bill as well. If the committee were to support Richard Leonard's proposal, then only miners who met the qualifying criteria for the pardon would receive compensation, only those who met the qualifying criteria. While others who lost their jobs, perhaps on the basis of an arrest rather than a conviction, or from being convicted for an offence that is outwith the qualifying criteria—we are getting close to agreeing—they would not receive compensation, they would set one miner or one miner's family against other miners. The scheme could also be divisive between those who could show the qualifying criteria for the pardon and those who could not, perhaps because no remaining reference to a conviction could be found in any records. I recognise that the intention here is a good intention, and I agree with the principle of compensation, but it would be complex, it would be divisive, and I think that it would be viewed by many people as unfair. It is also true to say that both employment law and industrial relations are reserved to Westminster. Pam Duncan-Glancy rightly mentions those aspects of the minor strike that have devolved, and this Parliament has responsibility for them. However, there are very serious areas in which those are still reserved. Employment, industrial relations and pensions are reserved to Westminster, and any Scottish Government to try to compensate or provide financial redress to miners who were dismissed by the national co-board and lost out, for example, on redundancy payments and pension rights creates a risk of straying into that reservation and not being within competence. One of the issues that are made by people like Richard Leonard and others who supported that point of view is that there was political interference in the strike, a commonly held view. We do not have the ability to go into the Cabinet papers of the UK Government or to call before us the national co-board if there are people still there that can talk to that. The reason for saying that we will want to continue to press the UK Government for a UK-wide public inquiry—we have to have regard to what miners in Wales would want to see from this in the north of England as well—a compensation should be a properly thought-out, uniform, fair system. If the compensation is for a miscarriage of justice and we have agreed that we are not going back to look and second guess what the courts did, whatever review in it—that is the whole basis of the John Scott review—it is not appropriate for the Scottish Government to make a payment that should be effectively undermining judicial decisions of the past and pre-empting possibly decisions to be made in the future. Those decisions are for the judiciary. I should sympathise with miners who have lost at least thousands, sometimes tens of thousands of pounds in redundancy and pension payments, which would have made a massive difference to them and their families, but it is not possible for me to support this amendment to create a compensation scheme because this bill is simply not the place for it. As I say, it would be regrettable if we are to divide either it will not be today because there is not a vote here but as a Parliament on this issue when I think there is so much that we do agree on. It was not proposed by the John Scott review and what that independent review group did it was a carefully constructed set of proposals which took that into account and we have tried to take that forward. We have expanded it to include more people in that pardon. It is a fine balance. I think that it is a right balance and it is for that reason that I would not support that amendment if it were to be voted on. Not that I would have a vote in this committee anyway, convener, but I would not support it at that stage. Thank you. I now ask Richard Leonard to wind up for the group. Thank you very much indeed convener. On the cabinet secretary's points, if a compensation scheme would be so divisive and so difficult to do, how do you think Boris Johnson is going to be able to do it? Secondly, you mentioned about the Scott inquiry and the independent review. In the Scott report, it is clear that it is silent on it because it was not in its remit to consider it. Amongst those attending today is Professor Jim Phillips from Glasgow University, who provided advice to the Scott review and he is in favour of a compensation scheme. We know that Denys Canavan, who was a member of the Scott review, is in favour of a compensation scheme. As I have alluded to earlier on, the NUM is in favour of a compensation scheme. It sees this as an opportunity for this parliament to lead the way, not to be divisive but to lead the way. I would ask the cabinet secretary and other members of the committee to think on that. In his earlier remarks, the cabinet secretary said that, as a student at Dundee University, he was in favour of the miners. I would ask him to reflect on what that student would think now of you 38 years later as the cabinet secretary with the ability to financially redress the wrongs of that era. Surely the younger Keith Brown would have looked to the older Keith Brown to take action, to take divisive action and to go beyond the symbolic pardon that is in this legislation. I am accused by some people of wanting to go beyond the intentions of the bill. The bill is guilty as charged because I want the legislation to not just have a symbolic effect but to have a moral effect, a practical effect, a financial effect and a meaningful effect. That is what this Parliament should be aspiring to do. That is what this amendment is intended to do. As I said in the stage 1 debate, to Fulton, McGregor and others, if not now when, if not us who, the cabinet secretary brought a degree of party politics into it. I am reminded that, over the past few weeks, the First Minister has been riding around Scotland in a campaign bus with a message on the side about sending a message to Boris. She said in a press interview that this election is an opportunity for people to send a message to Boris Johnson that they find his behaviour and response completely unacceptable. She has previously said of the Prime Minister who you are now looking at to provide a compensation scheme. Truth is a disposable commodity to Boris Johnson. She called him corrupt and a liar. That is who you are expecting this Parliament to vest its faith in, but more than that is who you are asking. The miners, the former miners, the miners' families and the mining communities to vest their faith in will not think that that is a credible argument to pursue. The cabinet secretary mentioned about other schemes that have been put in place. I take an interest in financial and audit matters these days much more than I did previously. If I look at the annual accounts of the Scottish Government, there is a note in there about the redress for survivors of historical child abuse cases, which was passed in March 2021 and received the Royal Ascent on 23 April 2021. It goes on to say that redress Scotland will consider applications and make determinations, which may include an offer of a redress payment to be made by the Scottish Government. It is not possible to determine the number of applicants or the level of payments likely to be made under the scheme, so it seems to me perfectly reasonable that we can agree to the principle of a scheme without getting to the point of being able to determine the number of applicants or, indeed, even the level of payments likely to be made. I will finish convener on this point. I do think that we have an opportunity before us to set an example to borrow the words of the national union of mine workers to take a lead. I think that we can be a beacon to the rest of the UK. We can take what I believe is an historic opportunity. The strike ended 37 years ago, and all the pits have long since closed. For new generations, this may seem like old history, but to those of us who lived through it in coalfield communities, as I did, who were part of mine as support groups who saw the strife and all of the unrest and the difficulties that those communities faced and the hardships that were inflicted upon people by the justice system of this community, that will stay with them, that will stay with others, and that is why today is the time to open up the dialogue and the discussion about the establishment of a compensation scheme for the miners and their families. The question of amendment 16 cannot be put in the absence of a financial resolution, so I now call amendment 17 in the name of Richard Leonard, who is already debated with amendment 2. On the basis of what the cabinet secretary said earlier on, I am happy not to press. I now call amendment 5 in the name of the cabinet secretary, who is already debated with amendment 2. The question is that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? I call amendment 18 in the name of Richard Leonard, who is already debated with amendment 16. It is a consequential convener of the amendment, which we are not voting on. The question is that section 3 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. I call amendment 13 in the name of Pam Duncan Glancy, who is already debated with amendment 1. Pam Duncan Glancy, to move or not move. The question is that amendment 13 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is not agreed. Those voting in favour of amendment 13, please raise your hands. One vote goes against. That is six votes. I therefore call amendment 6 in the name of the cabinet secretary, who is already debated with amendment 1. The question is that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. I call amendment 7 in the name of the cabinet secretary, who is already debated with amendment 1. The question is that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. I call amendment 14 in the name of Pam Duncan Glancy, who is already debated with amendment 1. Pam Duncan Glancy, to move or not move. That is moved. The question therefore is that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is not agreed. Those voting in favour, one vote and those against, that is six. Thank you. The question is that section 4 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. The question is that section 5 and 6 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. I call amendment 8 in the name of the cabinet secretary, who is already debated with amendment 1. The question is that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. The question is that the long title be agreed to. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. That ends stage 2 consideration of the bill. I thank the cabinet secretary and his officials for their attendance, and this concludes our meeting.