Seòmar agus comataidhean

I do not think that the bill is the vehicle for doing that. The bill’s legacy will be the impact that the pardon has on communities. I reiterate that that will be significant. The bill is us—not the state that was in control at the time but the Scottish Government that is now established—saying that we understand the pressures that obtained at the time of the dispute and that led people into the situations that we are talking about, and that, as a society, we want to pardon that.

We have made the bill simple and straightforward for those reasons. However, you are right that other work must continue. Work started straight away. I used to work for Stirling District Council and, in its various different political guises, that council worked right from the strike to support communities such as those in Fallin and Plean. That was true throughout Scotland, so such work is not new. However, because of the time that has elapsed, the help for regeneration finds different routes. The main route that the Scottish Government takes is to support the Coalfields Regeneration Trust. We intend to commit to that.

There is no question but that it was something that impacted on communities. I note that we launched and publicised the bill at the Polmaise Murray outdoor mining museum in Fallin, which I have been familiar with for many years.

As you said, even if the miners were 100 per cent out, if there was a heavy police presence and arrests emerged from that, those people will be pardoned. Whether people were at a demonstration, on a picket line or wherever something took place in the community, those things should be captured by the qualifying criteria that we have. I am genuinely not aware of any instance of someone in Fallin being convicted for reasons that are outwith the qualifying criteria for the pardon.

I have given the reasons why we think that we should restrict the pardon in the way that we have. Our approach also makes the pardon more meaningful for the people to whom it will apply. As you will know, quite a lot of secondary picketing went on. People from one community would go to another to support it. However, the approach is legitimate and it has been taken for the best of reasons. The pardon is restricted to miners and to the qualifying offences, which will include being on a picket line or at a demonstration in the community in Fallin.

There are some categories—but I will perhaps get the officials to come back on that. We are saying that there have been calls for those kinds of offences to be included within the scope of the bill, although it is worth pointing out that the independent review group did not make that specific recommendation. A conviction under the 1875 act could cover a wide spectrum of behaviour relating to attempting, without legal authority, to compel another person to support the strike or not go to work. The use of violence to intimidate another person or their family will not be covered, for instance. It could also cover behaviour such as persistently following someone else from place to place, as we have discussed previously. We are not looking to cover that. As I have said, it could also cover the “watching” or “besetting” of a house.

The lack of surviving police and court records makes it difficult to confirm the exact circumstances that gave rise to any offences under the 1875 act that were committed during the strike, such as the degree of violence or the malice attached. That is why we have taken the position that we have taken.

I do not know whether Elaine Hamilton wants to come in to say anything in addition to that.

The answer to the second point is no, I am not sure that we have considered that suggestion from the Lord President.

However, the draft order before us comes at the request of the Lord President, and that is partly for the reasons that you mention. We are keen to tackle the backlog, and that is perhaps why we have gone beyond the previous limit of 35, which was increased from 34 in 2016. We do not want the business to deal with the backlog to slow down, and that is why we want to appoint a further judge.

We have considered other things that may help. Sheriffs are sometimes elevated, but that would put more pressure on the sheriff courts. We are trying to balance that. The measure increases capacity for the Court of Session at a time when it would otherwise reduce because of the appointment of Lady Poole to the inquiry.

I am pretty sure that the Lord President said to me in his letter that the measure was to do with the backlog, too. That is being taken into account.

This landmark bill honours the commitment that the Scottish Government made to bring forward legislation to pardon miners of certain offences relating to the miners strike of 1984 to 1985. It follows up a recommendation made by an independent review group that a pardon should be granted to miners who were convicted of certain offences during the strike, subject to qualifying criteria. The pardon was intended to recognise the disproportionate impact felt by those miners as a result of taking part in the strike, to restore dignity to them, and to help the mining communities heal old wounds.

To establish what the qualifying criteria should be, the Scottish Government undertook a public consultation last year. The provisions in the bill reflect both the outcome of that consultation and careful consideration of the available data. It is important to emphasise at this point that there is very little surviving evidence from police and court records from the time of the strike, which is why I do not propose to put in place an application scheme for the pardon. I wish to make the qualifying criteria for the pardon as simple as possible so that people are able to assess for themselves whether the criteria are met, without having to find documentary evidence.

The bill proposes a collective pardon to miners that will apply automatically to those who meet the qualifying criteria, which are that the miner’s conviction relates to an offence committed while on a picket line, demonstration or similar gathering in support of the strike, or while travelling to or from such a gathering. The qualifying offences are breach of the peace, breach of bail conditions and those under section 41(1)(a) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967, commonly known as obstruction.

The bill is about reconciliation and dealing with the past in a sensitive way. The conditions of the pardon recognise that miners and police officers found themselves in extremely challenging situations where relationships came under unprecedented strain. Miners who took part in industrial action did so to protect their jobs, their way of life, and their communities. Police officers were only exercising their duty to uphold the law, in circumstances and on a scale that they had never encountered before.

The pardon will apply both to living people and posthumously, given the passage of time since the strike. The pardon does not quash a conviction; neither does it create any rights or entitlements. I am clear that the bill should not cast any doubt on decisions made by the judiciary at the time or seek to place blame on any individual or group of individuals. Once again, I am happy to take the committee’s questions.

It would be better if Teresa Medhurst answered that, as she has a much better grasp of exactly where we are on that. The member raises an interesting point and she knows the challenges that we have had on the issue. Teresa will have the up-to-date position.

My response to the question about a review was that we have not planned that, but there is a kind of on-going review. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to commit to providing an update to the committee in whatever timescale you think would be appropriate. As has been said, we are only four weeks into the system. After a three-month period, we will have a better idea of how things are panning out, so that might be a good point at which to provide an update to the committee. That might include elements of a review but, in any event, it would be good to update the committee on progress.

I do not. Teresa Medhurst might know the answer.

I come back to Mr Findlay’s previous point. He asked whether there had been a reduction in mail as a consequence of the measure. There is another consequence in which he might be interested. As I have mentioned before to the Parliament, sometimes, when we try to deal with drugs in prison, if we deal with one aspect, it causes an increase elsewhere. That is what has happened in this case: there has been an increase in the number of perimeter fence attempts to provide drugs in prison.

It is clear that there is a tidal wave—[Inaudible.]—and we do what we can, not least given what Teresa Medhurst said about the changing nature of drugs. Mr Findlay is right to say that there is a consequence to what we do.

I do not know who the academics consulted. They have a legitimate point and we are happy to take into account their concerns for the rights of prisoners and others. I point out that one of the initiatives came from Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons, who is very concerned, and obliged to be concerned, about prisoners’ rights. We believe that the measure is a proportionate response to safeguard those rights.

Perhaps Teresa Medhurst could answer the question about who the academics consulted before they made their submission.

I will try to respond, but Teresa Medhurst will have more of the detail.

The measure applies to general correspondence, but not all correspondence is opened, and there are different practices in different prisons. The approach might be targeted or it might be random, but not all correspondence is opened. I mentioned the exemptions, such as legally privileged information. I am aware that legally or medically privileged information can present a route to people trying to circumvent the system, so measures are taken to try to avoid that. Interestingly, we are aware of correspondence that purports to relate to the child abuse inquiry going to prisoners but which is nothing of the kind—it is a means to try to get drugs into the prison estate.

It is a difficult issue to deal with. I am sure that Teresa will not want to be too explicit about the ways in which we try to ensure that drugs do not get into the estate. However, not all correspondence is opened. We will look at personal correspondence, including correspondence from children, which is perhaps one of the most sensitive areas in relation to the issue. We have taken measures that are proportionate. We will ensure that prisoners get the original correspondence, where that is possible. Not all correspondence is opened. The approach is targeted or random, and I believe that it is proportionate.

Teresa might want to come in on that.

Again, Teresa Medhurst is best placed to answer that. There has been increased detection in that respect, so the system seems to be working well. Perhaps Teresa can give more information.