Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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.

You are absolutely right that it comes down to judgments. However, it is also true that, if we were to seek to pardon those convictions, it would set quite a precedent for similar offences that are committed now or in the future. Based on the consultations that we have had, I think that there would be a lot less sympathy when it comes to offences such as street fights, intimidatory conduct, violence or damage to property.

The point about the picket line is important. Our view—which, as you said, is based on a judgment that we have to make—is that, on the balance of probabilities, the miners’ conduct on a picket line or demonstration, or when going through a community to attend one of them, was directly related to support for saving jobs, rather than being an action born of anger or retribution against an individual. Therefore, you are right that it is a question of judgment, and that is the judgment that we are making. However, we will, of course, listen to other points of view.

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.