Chamber and committees

Thank you. Chris Birt, did you want to respond?

Thank you. Angela, in your opening statement, you talked about how individuals and organisations were affected across the piece. How do you see the priorities changing and having to be adapted to ensure that people are not lost or that they do not fall through the net?

A lot of correspondence has gone back and forth on this topic, and I note what the Scottish Government has said about the process and proceedings. As you have indicated, Ms Don has now come forward with her suggestion for a member’s bill, and I think that, at this stage, it would be appropriate to keep the petition open until we can establish the topics on which that bill is likely to proceed. You indicated that it might not be as broad as the approach that Ms Mitchell wants to progress, but it would be useful for us to have the proposal in any case and to invite the petitioner to provide evidence to the committee, depending on whether the member’s bill is allowed to progress.

I recommend that we try to achieve that with the petition. It will not be easy, as you indicated. The Scottish Government has expressed some strong views on the matter but, at this stage, it is important that we continue to progress the petition.

I see some merit in looking at the limited trial that the Ambulance Service is to carry out. As Mr Sweeney has indicated, there are risks to do with confidentiality and so on, which might be too great, but I believe that there is merit in considering what comes out of the trial and how things might progress.

Therefore, I am keen that we continue our consideration of the petition, and I am happy to support Paul Sweeney’s recommendations.

You have outlined the information that we have received and where we are in the process. When we last considered the petition in November, we wrote to some organisations, and you have gone through the correspondence that we have received from individuals and organisations, which have some very strong views on the petition. I note those views.

Under the circumstances, I believe that we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders. We have sought views from the Lord Advocate and Healthcare Improvement Scotland, and both believe that it would be inappropriate for the death certification review service to review medical death certificates in cases in which the cause of death has already been investigated by procurators fiscal. We have exhausted most of what the committee can do, so I suggest that we close the petition.

There is no doubt that work is progressing on a high-level framework, and I think that the Scottish Sentencing Council has put a huge amount of effort into all of this. I therefore suggest that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders given that, as the convener indicated, the council is developing a set of sentencing guidelines

“on rape, sexual assault, and indecent images”.

In closing the petition, the committee could write to the petitioner suggesting that she engages with the development of the guidelines and specifically the research project on rape and sexual assault. The committee could share the petitioner’s details with the Scottish Sentencing Council to ensure that dialogue and discussion take place between the petitioner and the council. I think that that would be the best way forward at this stage.

I pay tribute to the MSPs who have worked tirelessly on the issue in the past and those who are working on it presently, because it is an enormous issue for the local area. As the convener indicated, the previous committee visited the site and saw it at first hand. Having been an MSP in the previous parliamentary session, I am aware of how many times the issue has been discussed in the chamber through oral questions and of how the situation has progressed.

I look at where we are objectively, but I am not sure where we can go as a committee on the issue. A public inquiry would in some ways exacerbate the situation, because it would take time. There is already a huge amount of frustration in the community, and people want a solution to the problem. We have heard that proposals are coming forward that might cover that. They may not please everybody, but at this stage I do not know what else can be done to facilitate and ensure a solution, because everybody, including Transport Scotland and local members, has worked tirelessly. The council has participated and 600 people gave feedback, so there has been a big involvement from the community.

Could a public inquiry find a solution? I suggest that that might not be the most effective way forward. I have concerns about how we take forward the issue, so it would be useful to hear other members’ opinions.

I, too, thank the witnesses for their comments so far. As I said to the miners from whom we heard earlier this morning, my perception, as a youngster in those days, was that the miners strike was a bitter and divisive dispute.

Tom Wood said that police officers, given their role, had no choice but to do what they did to support the community and that the intention was to manage peaceful picketing—that came across. However, the miners who gave evidence to us said that they thought that there was a change in the policing attitude when the approach went from being local in flavour to being more national. They thought that there was a change in mindset, as well as in policy and procedure, when that happened.

Did Tom Wood and Jim McBrierty see any of that or interpret what happened in that way? The miners said that policing started off reasonably when the strikers knew the officers who were working with them daily, weekly and monthly, but that that accord seemed to change when police officers from other areas came in, when there was more aggression and confrontation. Can you give us your views on that?

You identify the length of time of the strike. It went through different phases. As someone who only watched the event, I certainly saw different phases of it through the media and on television.

We all understand that the pardon is intended to remove stigma. That is the crux of where the bill is trying to go, but by pardoning what was seen as criminal conduct, is it not rewriting history? It would be good to get your take on that.

Thank you for being so frank and for imparting your knowledge and wisdom on where the bill could go if the committee and the Parliament do not consider all the aspects. As I say, on the surface, it comes across as what we would expect but, when we dig deeper, we find further elements and layers that need to be looked at to ensure that we get the parity that is required.