Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is not covered.

No. I do not know enough of the details of the case. I know the Fishcross miners welfare club, which is no longer called that, very well. I related to you the story about things being thrown at my car, such as snowballs, in a different context. I am also familiar with Alloa sheriff court.

We cannot go into that. As I have explained already, we cannot go back, although if what you have said about Mr Tierney is correct, there are avenues of redress that can be taken forward by him in relation to that. That is the best way to do that—through the judicial system.

What we are saying is that, if somebody was travelling through a community on their way to a demonstration, to the picket line or to their work, that is included. Just to make sure—because I seem to have caused some confusion with my previous answer; it may be me who was wrong, rather than you—we will maybe get Elaine Hamilton to be specific on that.

However, I will add a point for your information. You said—and you are right—that there were very few convictions in Scotland under the Conspiracy, and Protection of Property Act 1875. According to the records that we know about, there were 16 convictions, which were solely in the Strathclyde region. At the time of the strike, the maximum penalty was £50 or three months in prison. We do not know what the disposals were.

I do not know whether Elaine Hamilton wants to add anything to clarify that, specifically in relation to travelling through an area and where we are and are not covering that.

That is a very good point. We are examining what we can do around that. The reason for the automaticity of the pardon is to make it as easy as possible for people who cannot necessarily provide evidence or documentation—in fact, we cannot provide much of the evidence and documentation. However, the idea that people really have to know that they have been pardoned is an important point.

We are looking at whether we can, first of all, work with the National Union of Mineworkers to look at its records and reach out to as many people as possible. However, there may be data protection issues in relation to that, which we will of course observe.

Beyond that, whether we can make a written statement will have to rely in some cases on people getting in touch with us, because we will not have the necessary information. We will not be able to go into the details of anybody’s particular conviction, mainly because those records are no longer held. The written letter, if we are able to do that, would make explicit the details of and qualifying criteria for the pardon, and it would it make it clear to that individual and their family that they are being pardoned. We are looking at that just now.

I can speak from my own experience of watching the events contemporaneously. I was never on the picket line, but I am pretty sure that I was involved in demonstrations, and certainly supporting activities, as a student in 1984. As I am sure the committee will remember, there was a lot of activity among students and community groups to help with miners’ welfare and so on.

Like everyone else at that time, I saw the pictures coming in from Orgreave, for example, where the policing seemed to me to be inconsistent with policing methods in Scotland. That distinction sometimes still appears to be there. For example, we might look at the policing of the recent 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—and the policing of the aftermath of Sarah Everard’s murder and the conviction that followed.

Policing in Scotland followed a different path even back then. However, there were allegations at the time—for example, that officers did not have numbers on their tunics and so on. I remember that there was a lot of grievance, because it was a time of heightened tensions at Bilston Glen and the other mines where there were issues. We are saying, therefore, that it was very difficult for the police, too, as they had not been put in such a situation before.

I do not have enough evidence to make a judgment on what the policing was like or where it fell down, but we know that miners were trying to defend their communities, their way of life and their livelihoods, and that led to some of the situations that happened on picket lines. For that reason, we are trying to see whether we can bring some reconciliation to the communities, and some comfort to the miners who were convicted and have had that conviction hanging around them for some time. That is the purpose of the bill; I do not pretend that it is trying to do anything else.

There are good reasons why we should not try to do a job that should be done by the UK Government. We do not have the facility to do that—we do not have the records, and the Parliament does not have the competence to look at some of those issues.

We will listen to any representations that are made. We have had substantial consultation with interested parties, mining communities, trade unions and others. As you say, there have been calls for other offences to be included. Some of those will fall under the Conspiracy, and Protection of Property Act 1875, which I am sure that we are all familiar with, which covers a wide spectrum of behaviours relating to attempting, without legal authority, to compel another person to support a strike or not go to work, which relates to your point about miners who continued to work during that time. Convictions under the 1875 act could cover the use of violence to intimidate another person or their family or damage their property; behaviour such as persistently following another person from place to place or following, along with others in a disorderly manner, another person on or through any street or road; or things such as watching, or what the 1875 act calls “besetting”, a house.

The lack of any surviving police or court records is a problem, and makes it very difficult to confirm the exact circumstances of the offences that were committed during the strike. We could not confirm, for example, the degree of violence or malice that was involved or where they actually occurred. It is also very difficult to determine the motivation behind such conduct. In some cases that have been reported, previous disputes between people were the basis for some of the things that happened during the strike.

We have extended the independent review group’s recommended criteria—for example, we are not introducing a constraint that says that someone is disqualified if they have had a previous or subsequent offence—but we do not think that it would be right to extend the pardon to those other potential offences when we cannot ascertain their details. We have tried to make the pardon applicable exclusively to miners and incidents that took place in the specified locations, or when travelling through a community to them. That is why we followed the views of the independent review group and have those qualifying criteria, although we have extended them slightly.

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.