Chamber and committees

I have already mentioned the extent to which we work with Police Scotland and other organisations, including the Scottish Football Association, on those issues. It is also worth saying that in taking action, whether against the gangs that Russell Findlay mentioned or against organised crime more generally, it is often not the best course of action to lay out exactly what you are doing as you are doing it.

As I am sure that the member will know, certainly in relation to sanctions and other actions that are taken against organised crime groups, the more you telegraph what you intend to do, the harder it is to find both the evidence and the proceeds of crime that derive from the activities of those gangs.

We will continue to work with our partners in sport and with the police to ensure that we take effective action and that people who are vulnerable, including young sportspeople, are best protected by taking the advice that they can get from Police Scotland and other justice partners.

I am delighted to open the stage 1 debate on the general principles of the Miners’ Strike (Pardons) (Scotland) Bill. I thank the convener and members of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee for their scrutiny of the bill and their stage 1 report. I am grateful to those who provided views to the committee as part of that process, many of whom experienced the strike at first hand and gave powerful testimonies.

There are, of course, a number of recommendations in the report that will require careful consideration, as I reflected in my response to it. I welcome the recommendation that the general principles of the bill be agreed to.

As we know, the miners strike of 1984 to 1985 was divisive in many ways. The unprecedented strain and turmoil of the year-long dispute was felt by many people who were either directly or indirectly connected to the coal-mining industry. A sense of unfairness clearly remains in Scotland’s former mining heartlands, one of which I represent.

Importantly, the committee’s report refers to the lasting psychological and economic impact that the strike had on generations of communities. Indeed, the lasting effects of the strike were also common themes in the evidence that was received by the independent review group that recommended the pardon, and in the representations that were made to the Government in its consultation last year.

In commissioning the independent review in 2018 and in subsequently introducing the bill, the Scottish Government has given a voice to many former miners who still feel the burden of a criminal conviction, and to their families, who remain angry about the management of the strike. We recognise that uncovering the truth of what happened during the strike is important to those affected.

The committee heard that more needs to be done for those communities, in terms of investment and providing opportunities, and that many communities have felt forgotten and taken for granted.

In my evidence to the committee, I spoke about the Scottish Government’s support for the work of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust. We value our long-standing relationship with the Coalfields Regeneration Trust and the support that it has delivered to ex-coalfield communities through our strategic partnership. In 2021-22, we have supported its work in our ex-coalfield communities through an annual grant of £754,000, made available through our empowering communities programme. Funding has enabled delivery of a wide range of grass-roots activities to tackle issues associated with poverty in those areas and to support those fragile communities, many of which were at the start of a community empowerment journey and are in the areas worst affected by the pandemic. By concentrating our regeneration efforts on the communities that need it most and by working with local people to deliver change, we hope that we can help to reverse the decline felt in former mining communities.

Of course, that is the present day. To fully understand the events of the strike nearly four decades ago, we need a United Kingdom-wide public inquiry. The committee’s view is that a UK-wide inquiry could consider the management of the strike and whether compensation for former miners is appropriate. I completely support that view. My sincere hope is that the passage of the bill will strengthen the calls for a full UK public inquiry. To that end, the Scottish Government would be happy to consider and compile factual and other information—which other bodies may be able to offer—as part of any future representations made to the UK Government. The search for answers should not end here; it should continue beyond the passage of the bill.

However, for now, we have the opportunity to bring some reconciliation to our mining communities. That should be the objective of the bill. I am clear that the bill is not about apportioning blame to any particular individual or group of individuals, or questioning the decisions made by the judiciary at the time. The bill does not intend to rewrite history; neither does it seek to pass judgment on all the events that happened during the strike. We do not have the facility to do that—we have neither the records nor the powers to look at all the issues that a full UK public inquiry could perhaps consider.

By introducing the bill, the Scottish Government is, within its existing powers, seeking to recognise the disproportionate, often unforeseen and long-lasting consequences that fell on miners as a result of a conviction. The pardon, therefore, symbolises a desire to heal old wounds by removing the stigma of a criminal conviction for those who meet the qualifying criteria.

I recognise, as the committee highlights in its report, the highly abnormal social situation that the strike created. There were many interests who became involved in the dispute in different capacities. I was a student at the time and was involved in activities from that side. The strike is still an emotive subject, and the bill seeks to deal with the past in a sensitive way and ensure that an appropriate balance is struck. I will therefore consider very carefully the committee’s recommendations around expanding eligibility to family members and others who stood in solidarity with striking miners.

I will also consider whether it would be appropriate to extend the pardon to convictions that arose from incidents beyond the picket lines and other demonstration-type gatherings. I will also reflect on whether the list of qualifying offences should be broadened. It will be important for me to discuss those matters with mining and policing interests before determining my position. Regardless of the scope that the Parliament agrees for the pardon, I am pleased that the committee considers that the pardon should apply automatically.

The committee has also highlighted the need to maximise awareness of the pardon. I agree that that is vital and can confirm that, arising from my discussions with the committee, the Scottish Government has had some productive discussions on that already, with a view to identifying and reaching out to those who may benefit from being informed about the pardon. That work is on-going and will bring challenges, given the passage of time since the strike and the lack of robust records. I am committed to working with partners and to using as many levers as we can to maximise awareness of the pardon, should the bill be passed. I hope that members will feel reassured by that.

I underline the clear message that the Scottish Government is sending by introducing the bill, which is that we understand that it was the unprecedented strain of that bitter and prolonged dispute that led to so many convictions and that, as a society, we want to pardon those convictions. In that way, we are recognising the hardship and suffering of entire communities and bringing some comfort and reconciliation to the many who were involved.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Miners’ Strike (Pardons) (Scotland) Bill.

I thank the members who contributed to the debate, which has been interesting, often constructive and sometimes challenging, as we would expect, given the subject matter.

I am encouraged by the lead committee’s endorsement of the bill’s general principles, which has been reflected in the debate.

I recognise that the debate, together with the stage 1 report, has covered a broad range of fundamental questions. Does the pardon cover the right people? Does the pardon cover the right offences? Does the bill cover the right circumstances where such offences were considered to have taken place? How do we best ensure that those who are most likely to benefit are aware of the pardon?

Does the bill deliver the objectives that the Parliament seeks? What can be done to support former mining communities, as a legacy of the strike and the demise of the coal mining industry? What can be done collectively to press the UK Government to consider undertaking a full UK-wide inquiry into the events of the strike?

It would be very unusual, at stage 1, for any bill to achieve complete consensus, and it seems unlikely that we will have that consensus when we get to the end of the bill process. That is unfortunate, but I am heartened to hear so much support in principle for the pardon that the bill seeks to deliver.

I have listened carefully to the points raised in the debate and welcome the opportunity to address some of those now. There were excellent contributions, including from the convener of the committee, Joe FitzPatrick, and from Alexander Stewart, Richard Leonard—I will come back to his comments in a second—and Annabelle Ewing, who talked about the effect on her community. Russell Findlay mentioned that, as a trade unionist, he had been on strike, too. I and many members will have been on strike, but none of us, when striking, will have seen the impact that the miners strike had on the people directly involved in it.

Fiona Hyslop and Christine Grahame gave us a good idea of how the issue reaches into virtually every family in Scotland, because of the prevalence of mining throughout our communities. Sarah Boyack, Maggie Chapman and Christine Grahame all spoke very powerfully. Pam Gosal mentioned the extent to which this is a symbolic pardon. The reasons for that are laid out by the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, which we asked to look at that. We need to ensure that everyone who needs to be included is included without having to go through an application process. That was the rationale behind what we did.

Richard Leonard’s contribution was basically a broad-based attack on the Scottish Government that leaves an overall consensus looking highly unlikely, which is unfortunate. In Wales last week, I spoke to a number of representatives of the Welsh Parliament, who were hearing about the bill for the first time and thought that it was a fantastic initiative. They were also certain—as I was, wrongly—that we would have a consensus in Scotland on the issue, because it will have a big effect. The lack of consensus, or the extent to which we accuse each other of havering or whatever, will undermine the effects of the pardon. That would be most unfortunate. It may be that we are the only Administration in the UK to agree to an automatic pardon. It would be unfortunate, to say the least, if the impact of the pardon is undermined by divisions between the parties in the chamber. However, I accept that that may be inevitable.

On the issue of compensation, there is a simple fact that cannot be wished away and is anything but havering. In terms of employment practices and pensions, one of the factors, which a number of members mentioned, is the political direction of the strike and the way in which it was managed. I well remember that, having been a student in 1984 and in support of the strike. There is also the political direction of the National Coal Board. It does not have the records and has no way of getting that information. It is really important that the reserved powers that would be necessary to validate and approve compensation payments are brought to bear in relation to this matter.

I am more than willing to listen to the suggestions of the committee and other members. I should say that the offences that we seek to cover—breach of the peace and so on—will cover 95 per cent of the convictions. However, I am aware that people might want us to consider one or two other areas, and I am more than happy to do that as we go forward.

It was generally a good debate—it is clear that people feel strongly about the issue. The passion with which members spoke shows that something that happened 40 years ago still resonates today.

I acknowledge that we might not agree entirely on various aspects of the issue or even on some of the points that are made, but I know that those points are often well intentioned. I hope that, whatever divides us, there will be general support in principle for the pardon. As has been mentioned, we have, in the way in which the pardon is being brought about, gone further than the independent review group, which had in mind the idea that the process should be as easy as possible for those who would benefit from a pardon.

That would rule out the idea of a lengthy application process. As the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee pointed out, that means that we must make every effort to ensure that people are aware of the pardon. We have undertaken to ensure that that will happen. If other members have suggestions about how we can go further on that, I am more than willing to listen to them.

Looking ahead, the challenge for us all will be in refining the detail of the bill in ways that enhance it rather than dilute its main purpose, which is to try to restore dignity to the former miners and to help to heal the longstanding wounds in our mining communities. We probably all know miners who had convictions who had never been in trouble with the law before and would never have thought that they would have such a conviction. Those people have felt—wrongly—a sense of shame over the years about having that conviction. That is what the bill seeks to address—it is about reconciliation.

We should keep in view the striking miners who fought passionately for their livelihoods—as did their communities—and those who supported them, as well as the police officers who were doing their job and seeking to uphold the law in very difficult circumstances.

If the Parliament is content to approve the principles of the bill, I will be happy to work with members and the committee as best I can to ensure that the bill achieves what we want it to achieve. I will also seek to reach agreement on those issues where there is still some division among us, even if it is not possible to get unanimity. That will be for the Parliament to decide.

The bill is important and allows Scotland to lead the way in publicly acknowledging the hardship endured in mining communities all those years ago and in taking action to restore the dignity of former miners that is so deserved. I commend the motion to the Parliament.

On behalf of the entire Scottish National Party group, I ask Jamie Greene to accept our sincere condolences for the tragic and untimely death of David Hill, not least from me, as a fellow graduate of the University of Dundee.

Registered sex offenders are already obliged by law to notify the police of any change of name. Sex offender notification requirements apply to an individual, irrespective of the name that they use.

Multi-agency public protection arrangements—known as MAPPA—provide a robust statutory framework for management of high-risk offenders in the community. Under those arrangements, the responsible authorities—which are the police, health boards, the Scottish Prison Service and local authorities—work together to assess and manage the risks that are posed by those individuals. Agencies can use a range of safeguards, including surveillance, electronic tagging, curfews, sexual offence prevention orders and other civil orders that are intended to reduce the risk of sexual harm. MAPPA documentation includes recording of any aliases.

Police Scotland’s domestic abuse disclosure scheme has helped to safeguard those who have been suffering from, or are at risk of, domestic abuse. By the fifth anniversary of the operation of the scheme in 2020, more than 8,400 requests had been made to the scheme and 4,536 people had been told that their current partner had a violent or abusive past.

I repeat the point: registered sex offenders are already obliged by law to notify the police of any change of name, and sex offender notification requirements apply to an individual irrespective of the name that they use.

There are a number of other checks. I have mentioned one that they are obliged to follow. There are checks that can be attached to a sexual offences prevention order that limit a person’s ability to use social media. The disclosure scheme that is used by the police—which was previously known as Clare’s law—has been in use for five years and has helped more than 4,000 people, as I said. Disclosure Scotland also carries out checks.

So, a number of checks can be made in relation to the matter. Russell Findlay will be pleased—or, to some extent, reassured—to know that, of all the main crime groups, sexual offences have the lowest reconviction rate. I am more than happy to discuss potential improvements to the system with any member.

As the convener of the Criminal Justice Committee, Audrey Nicoll will know that violence in any form clearly has no place in our vision for a just, safe and resilient Scotland. She will also be aware that, in the vision, we take a public health approach that seeks to tackle violence through prevention and early intervention, in order to reduce the numbers of victims and of people reoffending, and to help to build safer communities.

Since 2008, we have invested more than £24 million in violence prevention activities. That includes the work of the violence reduction unit and Medics Against Violence, as well as delivery of programmes such as the mentors in violence prevention scheme; No Knives, Better Lives; and our hospital navigator service. Audrey Nicoll’s question allows me to point out that we want, of course, to ensure that we do not have victims in the first place, which is why violence prevention is how we should try to tackle the issue. However, we need to ensure that, when a person is convicted of such a crime, we have the maximum possible protection in place for our communities.

On that last question, I have already said in response to the initial question that I am happy to discuss the issues and to consider what improvements can be made.

On the first part of Pauline McNeill’s question, she will appreciate that not disclosing that information is very often a breach of conditions. I would have to check whether that would equate to an illegal or criminal act. However, it would certainly be a breach of conditions in many cases, and might result in a person being taken back into custody. I am happy to write to her with more information on that.

That suggestion requires serious thought, in line with the provisions that are already in place, not all of which the member will be aware of. I have mentioned a number of them. Substantial checks are made. It is always the case that a person might refuse to follow those checks, but the police, social workers and others who work in the area monitor sex offenders’ activities. A range of checks are currently undertaken.

The landscape is complex. If Russell Findlay—or any other member—is able to identify what he calls a loophole, or to suggest some improvement of the system, I am more than happy to discuss that. We should all want to improve the safety of our communities.

Again, I fear that there is some unwillingness to hear the answer.

The answer is that Scotland has a higher number of officers—[Interruption.] Scotland has a higher number of officers than was the case at any time under the previous Administration. In England and Wales, officer numbers had fallen by almost 20,000 by 2017 and remain more than 4,000 lower than they were in 2007—that is the Tories for you.

Katy Clark, her party and other parties in the Parliament have acknowledged the extent to which the pandemic has led to substantially increased numbers of people being on remand. However, the point that lies behind her question is that Scotland has had more people on remand in the past and more people in prison in the past.

I refer Ms Clark to the recently produced justice vision, which seeks to address that, and the forthcoming legislation that will seek to address the point that she rightly made about the numbers of people on remand. The Liberal Democrats have made that point as well, as have others in the chamber, and we seek to address it. I hope that Ms Clark and her party will be able to support those measures, because we have to drive down the numbers of people on remand and in prison.