Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

As I said previously, the bill does not exclude women—we have no evidence of any females being convicted, certainly not under the qualifying criteria, and I do not think that we have much evidence beyond that. I think that the figure is 5 per cent for all the convictions that we are aware of in relation to those who would not fall under the qualifying criteria. Perhaps Elaine Hamilton can comment on that.

I have looked at the matter quite closely, and I think that there is a danger that the more we widen the scope of the bill to cover areas in which we are able to get less supporting evidence, the less value the pardon itself will have. That is my thinking, and I imagine that the independent review group, which included people such as John Scott and Dennis Canavan, would have had the same rationale.

Elaine Hamilton may want to come in with the figures, if she has them. I am sure that I saw somewhere that 5 per cent of convictions were for offences that do not qualify under the criteria in the bill, but perhaps not. We can provide the committee with that evidence in due course. That is the thinking behind the bill.

We are still looking at that, but that is likely to be the case. We have started discussions with the NUM about using its records to identify a number of people in relation to the convictions that they had. If we can do something proactively in relation to that, we will look at that. However, there are bound to be people who are not captured by that, and we want to make it as clear as possible that if they want to get in touch with us, we will give them as explicit a statement as possible, in writing, about the pardon.

The maximum number of judges is set out in section 1(1) of the Court of Session Act 1988. The draft order in council will increase the maximum number of judges of the Court of Session by one, from 35 to 36. Judges of the Court of Session also sit as judges of the High Court of Justiciary. An increase in the number of judges of the Court of Session has been precipitated by the recent appointment of Lady Poole as chair of the Covid-19 inquiry. Lady Poole is an outer house judge of the Court of Session on secondment to the inquiry. During the secondment, she will not be available to sit in court. However, she remains a judge for the purposes of the statutory limit in section 1(1) of the 1988 act.

As that inquiry is expected to last for several years, the Lord President requested an additional judge to meet the demands of the business in the Court of Session and the High Court. The appointment of Lady Poole to chair the Covid-19 inquiry, coupled with the current high level of court business, means that the appointment of a further judge will provide additional judicial resource during these challenging times.

The Lord President does not consider that it is possible to appoint a further series of temporary judges drawn from the shrieval bench for this period of time, as that would place additional pressure on the sheriff courts and would therefore not secure the most efficient disposal of court business.

I am happy to answer any questions from members.

It would be consistent with my previous answer, and I would just point out that the Scottish Government and Parliament did not exist at the time. Indeed, policing itself was not devolved at the time. One of the allegations was that, at a Cabinet sub-committee, there was a reference to the way in which the policing of the strike should happen in Scotland. I do not know the exact terms, but it was around the Secretary of State for Scotland being asked at Cabinet to ensure that the strike was policed in the same way as the rest of the UK. That brings us back to the accusation that was made at the time about the policing of the strike being politically directed. There were also allegations about the involvement of security services, the use of phone tapping and so on.

However, we are in no position to examine those things—they do not fall within the competence of the Scottish Parliament. Indeed, if we tried to hold an inquiry without that evidence, we would undermine the calls that I, my predecessors and others have made for the UK Government to hold an inquiry. When I recently wrote to the UK Government on this matter, I said that the very process of introducing the bill and highlighting the issue would increase the pressure for a proper public inquiry to be held. I know that it can seem like a forlorn hope to make such calls to the UK Government, but I note that it recently agreed—at last—to hold an inquiry into the treatment of people who were convicted of homosexual offences in the armed forces before 2000. It is therefore possible to achieve such an aim, and that is where our focus should be. After all, these are the people and the agencies that have the evidence.

As for your point about policing being devolved, I have already mentioned the extent to which policing records have been destroyed. That has happened sometimes for very good reasons—indeed, it is part of the process. There are what are called the 40/20 and 70/30 rules. If you reach the age of 40 and it has been 20 years since your conviction, the police will destroy the records; if we are talking about something more serious, the records will be destroyed if you reach the age of 70 and it has been 30 years since the conviction. As we do not have the records, they cannot be looked at with the rigour of a public inquiry, but, on the outstanding questions about the policing and management of the strike and its political aspects, I believe that the right focus for that is the UK Government. That will certainly continue to be my focus.

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.

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.