Chamber and committees

For the people who have called for the pardon, including former MSP Neil Findlay, this was about reconciliation. Neil Findlay’s views on compensation might be different from mine, but the rationale for the pardon was about reconciliation, as I said in my answer to Alexander Stewart.

A compensation scheme would not be consistent with the proposal for miners to self-assess their eligibility for a pardon. We would need a much more stringent process if people were applying for compensation, and, given the lack of records and so on, that would be problematic for quite a number of the individuals who are involved.

If we had such a scheme, we would run the risk of the bill moving away from its intended symbolic effect into the territory of questioning decisions that were made by the judiciary at the time. To be clear, we are not doing that—we are not quashing any convictions; we do not have the ability to look back in time, assemble the evidence and do that, in any event. Also, a compensation scheme would run the risk of creating a precedent for pardons that are granted. Other legislation for pardoning convictions such as the Historical Sexual Offences (Pardons and Disregards) (Scotland) Act 2018 did not offer compensation, so there would be a risk of legal challenge.

Employment and industrial relations are reserved to the UK Government. The Scottish Government was not the employer, was not party to the dispute and was not in existence at the time. A compensation scheme for loss of earnings, pension and other rights would touch on employment issues, which are for the UK Government to consider. We have pressed—and will continue to press—the UK Government to hold a full public inquiry. That is the place where such issues should be discussed or addressed. For us, we think that the pardon is a reasonable measure to try to introduce some reconciliation in communities that were driven apart during the strike.

Yes, I think that more can be done, and I am more than happy to listen to any suggestions that members of the committee may have in that regard—indeed, they have made some ready.

There will be attendant publicity as a result of the committee’s deliberations and when the bill progresses to the chamber and is—I hope—passed. That will bring additional awareness across the country. I also hope that seeing what is being done here will give heart to those in Wales and England who are in a similar position.

I have already mentioned our looking at the idea of writing to as many people as we can legitimately identify. We are also looking at going beyond that measure, where that is possible. I am more than happy to commit to giving further thought to what else we can do to try to address the psychologically scarring effects of the strike and the scarring effects on individuals from having a conviction. For many, that will be their only conviction—they had never looked to get into trouble with the police at any other stage of their lives. I am certainly open to suggestions on how we can maximise the impact of our approach.

You are right about compensation. We have to remember what going through a compensation route would mean for those individuals who are still alive, rather than their getting an automatic pardon. I think that it is important that we focus on the pardon.

On your last question, I have tried to make the point that we will continue to put pressure on the UK Government to take responsibility. That is not to blame current members of the Government for things that happened in the 1980s, but the Government has a responsibility to address some of the issues of concern. We have said that consistently, and we will continue to say that to the UK Government.

I certainly think that that is problematic. It might surprise some people to find that the number of offences that are not listed is much greater than the number of ones that are, so we would have to do a much longer list to say which ones are not subject to the pardon. That approach will work only if Parliament is minded to favour a blanket pardon with very limited exceptions.

As things stand, there are three qualifying offences, but the 5 per cent covers a number of other offences, including vandalism, assault, possession of an offensive weapon and careless driving. We could set out the offences not to be included, but I think that it is easier—not least given that we have defined who is a miner, and that it is miners we are seeking to address—to say which offences, specifically, are being pardoned. I think that that is a more clear-cut approach for the public to understand and for the miners concerned themselves—if that addresses the question that you were asking.

In relation to injuries and other aspects, the National Association of Retired Police Officers and the police pension fund have a responsibility to look after their members, as do bodies such as the Scottish Police Federation, and they will do that very effectively.

The miners often lost all of that. They had no pension fund. I am not sure about their pensions but, if they were dismissed from their job, they certainly lost their employment rights.

You are right to say that there are some things, such as serious assault, that we are not looking to pardon. We have made that clear.

There is a distinction between pardons in this case and, say, pardons in relation to historical sexual offences, about which the Parliament said that a whole category of offences was wrong. That whole category of offences breached people’s human rights. We are not saying that in this case. We are not saying that the body of law that was brought to bear or the justice system itself was wrong. We are not in a position to say that they were wrong, as we do not have the evidence or the ability to go back in time. However, there was not the fundamental and systematic undermining of people’s human rights, as there was with the sexual offences. Given that that is the case, we are not looking to quash any convictions. We are not doing that in this regard; we are providing a pardon, because of the exceptional circumstances.

You are right that there are some offences that would have had implications—sometimes serious implications—for individual police officers. You will have heard evidence on that from the National Association of Retired Police Officers. That is another reason for the approach that we are taking.

I do understand that. As I said, I followed what happened during the strike in some detail. In the places where I lived and worked, I was well aware of the impact not just on the miners, but on their families and entire communities. I am well aware of that.

Because of the way that the dismissals were carried out, there were quite a few reinstatements afterwards. There were probably more in Scotland because, proportionately, there were higher numbers of dismissals in the first place. However, they were dismissals by the employer—the National Coal Board—that applied across the UK, and they relate to employment law, which is reserved to the UK.

I am not quibbling with anything that has been said about the loss that was endured by people, which is sometimes very hard to quantify because it was so huge. However, if there is a case for compensation, that is for the state that was the authority at the time. It has the reserved powers to look at employment legislation and to look into wider issues about the policing and the extent of political involvement in the policing. We do not have those powers. If we tried to introduce some kind of compensation scheme, it could delay the pardon, as one or two members have mentioned, but it is also important to note that we have neither the legislative competence to deal with that and get all the facts around employment and so on, nor the ability to get all the necessary information.

I am not sure why somebody would want to oppose the idea that the UK Government should be held to account for this. It has the ability to look at it, to get such records as still exist and to question things such as whether there is any substance to the idea that the intelligence services were involved. The UK Government can do that, but we cannot. That is why I take the position that, if there is to be a compensation scheme, it will be for the UK Government to consider. I give my commitment that I will continue, on behalf of the Scottish Government, to call on the UK Government to hold a full public inquiry, which could cover the issues that you have mentioned.

It is really around the idea of being as relevant to what we are discussing as it is possible to be. That is why we are looking at the miners who were most directly affected. That is why we look at the offences that were related to the exceptional circumstances on the picket line when the person’s community, their job and the industry itself were under threat. We are trying to recognise those particular circumstances.

With other potential offences and convictions, we have much less ability to say what the motive and the circumstance behind them were. We do not have the records to do that. If we included those in the bill, we could be pardoning things that included serious assaults or intimidation of people. That might happen in very few cases, but it would be possible. That is why we think that the right way is for the bill to be about the miners who were most directly affected and what happened on the picket lines in defence of their jobs and communities.

We understand that what happened then was extremely unusual—it was extraordinary. I think that it was Alexander Stewart who made the point that it was probably the most divisive strike that any of us can remember, in terms of its longer-term consequences. We are trying to recognise that. For the bill to be wider would be very problematic for the reasons that I have mentioned. It is a judgment, as I have said before, and that is the judgment that we have made in relation to this.

Louise Miller is the expert on that.

You have made some good points. You spoke about how divisive the miners strikes were; however, there were other divisive disputes. If you remember the Wapping dispute, you will remember how divisive that was. As you said, the difference with the miners strikes was the communities. Whole communities were identified as mining communities—for example, the areas that you and I represent have a number of such communities, and there are others across Scotland. The geographical nature of those mining communities is such that the division has carried on for all these years.

On the issue of the pardon, it is important that the committee talks to former miners, as it has done. A number of them had never been in trouble with the law, and they felt a degree of shame about having a conviction. Others did not, because they felt that what they did was justified, which I acknowledge. The impact of a pardon on those who are still with us and know that feeling is quite substantial. Therefore, I think that the pardon will have a big effect.

You are right to say that we have a continuing obligation to the mining communities. On Friday, I attended an event for the Hawkhill community centre, which took place at the centre. Representatives of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust were there, and I spoke to them at length. They still hold activities such as football for youngsters in the communities in Tullibody. We support the work of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust in the former mining communities. The annual grant is £754,000 this year, which has helped to fund grass-roots activity that tackles issues associated with poverty in the communities.

You are right to say that we are still dealing with a long tail of consequences from the dispute and people having lost their jobs. I do not think that the rest of the United Kingdom—I am not sure about Wales—has continued support for the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, but we have done so and will continue to work with the trust so that the grant addresses the new challenges. If we can concentrate our efforts on regenerating the communities that need it most and working with local people to deliver the change that they want to see, that will perhaps be the best and most effective thing that we can do to help those communities. However, the pardon will also have a tangible effect for many people who were involved.

The answer that I gave to Maggie Chapman still stands. We thought long and hard, as did the independent review group, about who was most directly affected, and we feel that it was the miners themselves. Many other people, including me, got involved in demonstrations at the time, but we do not think that the bill should cover them. Other people, including students, received convictions but, for the reasons that I mentioned, it is important that we restrict the qualifying offences under the bill to the miners who were involved.

You asked about the definition of a miner. That relates to employment in a mine that was owned by the National Coal Board. We considered a number of matters—it is not straightforward—in forming the Government’s position on how a miner should be defined.

We consider that the people who were most adversely affected by the strike and the consequences of strike-related convictions were the miners themselves. Only males were allowed to work underground in the UK coal mining industry in 1984 and 1985, so inevitably the focus in relation to the numbers of people who were arrested, prosecuted and convicted was on male miners. However, the definition has been drafted to recognise that there might have been other people—employed by the coal board or licensed under the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946—who could meet the pardon criteria. The definition recognises that some surface employees experienced their livelihoods being directly threatened by mine closures and might have participated in or taken action in support of the strike—in fact, I know people who did so who were surface employees.

The policy intention is to capture people who worked underground in a coal mine, at the surface of the coal mine and at the larger workshops located outwith coal mines which were used to maintain and repair mining equipment and machinery. I think that you can draw a line regarding people whose livelihoods were directly related to the mine and under threat because of the strike itself.

The definition would also cover female employees who meet the pardon criteria. However, we are not aware of any robust evidence to suggest that any female was convicted in Scotland for offences related to the strike. That is why we have come to that conclusion. We think that the miners are most directly affected and that to extend the definition further would be problematic, not least because of the poor quality of the evidence—records and so on—that is still available. We think that we have struck the right balance in relation to that. However, as I have said before, we will listen to representations.

Will the member take an intervention?