Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am nearly finished, but yes.

I want to make a wee bit of progress. The Labour Government did nothing about granting pardons or setting up compensation schemes.

There is a legacy of mining communities in my constituency—those of Newtongrange, Gorebridge and Penicuik—and I have immediate family connections with miners, as well as my own direct memories of the 1984-85 mining dispute itself.

The footprint of the mines in my constituency is there for all to see. Newtongrange, whose mining museum and great wheel border the A7, is still characterised by the neat rows of miners’ cottages—First Street, Second Street and so on—with narrow lanes at the back, which the coal lorry used to deliver their quota.

High above the community, Gorebridge has its memorial to miners who lost their lives in the pits over the years, the inauguration of which I was glad to attend. There is also the Shottstown miners welfare club in Penicuik. Those communities are still all there. That means that the landscape and sense of community of Scotland’s mining past are literally never out of my sight. We have a responsibility to those communities.

My family connection with mining was my paternal grandfather, who was a Welsh coal-miner. I never met him; he died prematurely in his early 40s from a head injury that he sustained when a pit prop fell on him. That left his large family of children, including my late mother, a Derbyshire woman, orphaned, as his wife had died in childbirth. My mother never let us forget the hardships of that job and the fact that he left those 10 orphaned children, including her. His death had an enduring effect on the way she led her life and how she saw coal mining, which she passed on to me.

When the events of the mid-1980s became the stuff of news bulletins, she raged against the Tory Government for its ruthless treatment of the miners, their families and their communities. I, too, was shocked, especially when police on horseback were sent charging into men who were simply demonstrating for their livelihoods. Often, those officers were shipped in from outside the community, because the local police could not be used.

As others have said, during the strike, 1,300 or more people were charged and more than 400 were convicted. Those convictions stand to this day, so the bill is much to be welcomed.

At stage 1, I noted that the Government recognised that miners’ wives and families who were directly involved in the dispute might also have received convictions and should perhaps be encompassed in the bill, and I am glad that that has happened at this stage.

We need a publicity campaign to ensure that everyone is aware of their rights. I understand that the Government is doing that, partly through the NUM.

I absolutely agree with having a symbolic and collective blanket pardon, but that does not remove a conviction from the record. Section 3(a) of the bill makes it plain that that remains the case, so members might question what practical effect such a pardon would have. People might think that, by being granted a collective pardon, their conviction will be expunged from the record; it will not. However, I appreciate that we still have the effect of the prerogative of mercy, which is the power of the Crown to quash a conviction. In any event, in practical terms that issue might not be so relevant, as convictions might now have lapsed through time and records might be lost. However, the UK Government must hold an inquiry into all that took place, and in particular into whether there was political interference in policing and the judiciary.

I will be brief, because we have already rehearsed the issue of compensation. It really makes me cross that £4.4 billion was taken straight out of the miners pension fund without the UK Government putting a penny in, while Richard Leonard was looking for compensation from our budgets for public services. I would never let a Tory Government off the hook in the way that he seems to be doing. I am glad that he is going to speak to his Welsh colleagues, because we need power behind us to ensure that that £4.4 billion—

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I do not know where I am with the voting. I cannot vote.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am still trying to connect to the digital voting platform. It is just not connecting. I would have voted yes.

Richard Leonard and I have debated this issue before. I absolutely support compensation for the miners but there is a question to be asked about who should pay and why.

The policies were pursued by a Tory Government; there was no Scottish Parliament in place at the time. Liability lies entirely—

If Richard Leonard lets me conclude, he will have a chance to respond.

Liability lies at the feet of the UK—a UK which, as Richard Leonard knows, has taken £4.4 billion out of the miners pension fund without putting a penny into it. The UK is sitting on that money—they filched it. Compensation should come from there, not from the budgets that we have in this place for public services. That would penalise the health service, policing, education and so on. [Interruption.] I hear what members ask about what the UK will do. I call upon Labour members, along with their Welsh Assembly colleagues, to pursue the UK Government to reach into that £4.4 billion that it has filched from the miners pension fund to set up a proper compensation fund and, at the same time, to do what we are doing in this place, which is to grant a collective pardon. We are the first nation to do this; it is a disgrace that it has not been—

That was in response to actions that took place while the Scottish Parliament was in place. This is about what happened in 1984 and it is not as though they do not have the money. How can members possibly support £4.4 billion that was taken from the miners pension fund not being used for a compensation fund?

I say to Labour members: do not let yourselves be bulldozed by a Tory Government; get your colleagues at the Welsh Assembly to put on pressure for a compensation scheme as well, and let us shame a Tory Government that requires to be shamed.

Eight years ago, in 2014, pensioners were told to vote no or they would lose their state pensions. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me—I am a pensioner—that with one of the worst state pensions in Europe, and with each pensioner now losing £500 a year as the United Kingdom ditches the triple lock, Scotland’s pensioners would benefit from independence?

In my drop-in surgeries in Tesco, I often find elderly people who do not use or have access to the internet or have a mobile phone. Many of them live alone, with perhaps no one to assist them in completing a paper form. What was identified as a factor in non-completion when those non-returning households were visited? What recommendations will fall from that?

There were more than 50 candidates in Midlothian, and there are such small margins between the winners and the losers in these votes. I noted that some returning officers were explaining the system to each voter who walked in, even if they said that they understood it. However, that was not happening at every polling station. Will the minister consider the instructions that were given to people who were working at the polling stations about what to say to explain the system to voters as they came in?