Seòmar agus comataidhean

Would a ban of the use of mesh in hernia repairs be a good thing? Would that change some of the dynamics?

Amendment 9 in my name looks at the wording of the bill. As has been indicated, there is a vagueness and lack of specifics with regard to the phrase “similar gathering”, and that kind of imprecision might lead miners and their families to mistakenly believe that they had been pardoned for participating in events not covered by the bill. Amendments 10 to 12 are of a similar nature.

As for other amendments in the group, amendment 2 in the name of Keith Brown clarifies that theft “meets condition C”. That condition is set out in amendment 3, which improves the clarity around who will be pardoned and also widens the scope of the pardon. Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 3A slightly changes the drafting of amendment 3. As it appears to be a slight improvement, we will support it.

Amendment 17 seeks to widen the offences under section 7 to cover violence and intimidation and damage to property. I am unhappy and concerned about the process in that respect, and perhaps Richard Leonard will give us some more clarity on that when he speaks to the amendment. At this stage, I am a little concerned about how the process of what the amendment seeks to do would be managed, so I look forward to hearing what the member has to say.

Finally, I note amendment 5, which works with previous amendments to include theft as a qualifying offence when committed as a result of economic hardship due to unfair conditions.

I understand why the amendment has been lodged and I have no doubt that it has been lodged in good faith. However, it attempts to introduce a compensation scheme, which is not the purpose of the bill and would only delay its implementation. For those reasons, I would feel unhappy about agreeing to the amendment at this stage.

I understand the financial implications of the amendment, but this is a UK-wide issue, which should be addressed UK-wide. If compensation is to be considered, it should be considered as a UK-wide issue and not in this bill.

I am happy to be involved with the bill. It is quite small and it does not offer a huge opportunity to be extended, but I recognised and understood what the cabinet secretary said about the extension of the pardon to household family members and the changes to qualifying individuals in his amendments 1 and 4, and I concur with the cabinet secretary on those.

I note what Pam Duncan-Glancy said about her amendments, but I believe that there should be further discussion on where to take those. They broaden the definition to a level that the bill perhaps does not encapsulate, so more discussion and dialogue is needed on that going into stage 3.

I also believe that cabinet secretary Keith Brown’s amendments 6, 7 and 8 provide more clarity on how we would manage the process and am, therefore, content to accept the amendments at this stage. The other amendments could potentially progress into the next stage, so that more clarity can be sought and discussed.

I suggest that we take evidence from the minister. That is important because, although the response covers some aspects, more could be teased out.

You mentioned the opportunities that the community has had. The community ought to be congratulated on its endeavours, because it has highlighted the issue. You have worked with politicians and other groups in the community to ensure that the issue has been kept live. That is to your credit.

What do you want to be done differently? What do you want HIAL to try to achieve with its proposals for the future?

You talked about lessons being learned in the process. It is vital that lessons be learned about how to manage the staff and industrial relations in the future. What would you like HIAL to try to achieve to ensure that that becomes a reality?

The petition is very important, especially for people who are in rural areas. It would be advantageous if we were to write to the Scottish Government to ask whether an impact assessment was carried out in advance of the R100 programme and the R100 broadband voucher scheme—which you mentioned, convener—being introduced to ensure that the people who are most at risk of digital exclusion were prioritised.

In addition, we could ask the Scottish Government how, in drafting such an impact assessment, it assessed which rural properties had the slowest internet speeds. That is the crux of the matter: the problems that are caused for individuals in rural areas who do not have digital access.

Thirdly, we could ask the Scottish Government whether it has taken any other measures to prioritise boosting connectivity for rural households with the lowest internet speeds.

Those issues are all vitally important, and it is incumbent on us to ask the Scottish Government where we are with all that, because—as I said—it is an area that is causing huge concern across many rural areas.

You have talked about openness and honesty in the process. It is evident from the concerns that you have raised that the community feels that it has not been listened to and has not had the impact that it wanted in the process. You said that you hope that lessons have been learned. How did the management handle the concerns that were expressed about the proposal initially? Were the proposals completely flawed from the beginning, or were there areas within what was produced that the community might have been open to? Would the community have been willing to participate in the process?

As Rhoda Grant has indicated, the region is so sparse that it is almost a postcode lottery. I concur that it would be useful to get the petitioner in to give evidence on the process in order to inform how we can progress the petition.