Seòmar agus comataidhean

I understand how difficult a balancing act it must be to decide whether to implement the measures. Clearly, if some people are using personal mail to get drugs into prison, that must be dealt with, but I assume that that is not the case for the majority of prisoners, whose personal mail would also be subject to the measures.

Obviously, prisoners are living in prison—that is their home for a period of time. They develop relationships with prison officers, and prisoners might have feelings about what sort of information about their family life they want to share with them. Are any rules in place about whether personal mail is read by officers when it is opened? Once it is screened and it has been confirmed that it is not contaminated with any drugs, is it then put down? You know the question that I am asking. Once mail has been read, can that have a wider impact of changing the dynamics in the relationships in the prison?

My next question might seem to run counter to my previous one. I asked for reassurances that prisoners’ personal mail is not being read. On the other side of that, if you like, what measures are in place for officers who perhaps inadvertently see something in mail—perhaps they read part of it—that they have concerns about, such as something of a child protection nature? Are they allowed to go to their line manager without any fear of being told, “Well, you must have read that mail to know that”?

I know that that kind of runs counter to my previous question, but a picture could come in that raises a child protection concern. Something like that could catch the eye, so are processes in place to allow officers to report that without any fear of reprimand for reading mail?

This might sound a naive question, but is it often quite obvious that a letter is not contaminated, or is there a grey area that means that it needs to go for an official test?

Good morning. From listening to what has been said and what the cabinet secretary outlined, on balance, I am minded to support the measure. However, I have concerns, some of which have already been explored. My question is about the type of correspondence that is included. We have heard that it is “general correspondence”. Cabinet secretary, you said a bit about that in your opening statement, but will you clarify what is included? Does it include personal mail from, for example, prisoners’ children or family members? I assume that it does, but I would like that to be clarified. Has all general correspondence been opened since the regulations came into force on 13 December?

I thank the witnesses for their evidence so far. Jim Phillips raises a very good point that will probably make up the bulk of our discussions as we take evidence on the bill, and it concerns the bill’s scope. Until you provided that evidence, Jim, I had not thought about the offences that were committed in the communities surrounding the miners strike.

Obviously, the bill is about a pardon for miners, and it defines what a miner was. Should its scope be widened to include those who supported miners on the strikes, such as family and friends, and who were also charged or convicted? That question is for Jim, but I would also like to ask the witnesses who were there whether friends and family members were convicted as well as miners, or did that not really happen?

Like Pam Duncan-Glancy, I was only a pup when the strikes took place—I was about six years of age—but like everybody who was in those communities, my upbringing was shaped by them. We heard about them through school; I can even remember them being talked about in primary school. That is how big an impact they had.

I am interested to hear from those who were there whether it was just miners who were ultimately charged or whether there were others. If so, should the scope of the bill be widened in that respect? I put that to Jim first, and then maybe other witnesses would like to come in.

Only if somebody else wants to come in, convener. I realise that there are four witnesses.

I thank both of you for putting on record how you think that communities have been impacted. What you have said is quite telling. There has been a long-standing impact on communities and, in many ways, it is still there.

I have a question about the scope of the bill, which you will have heard us ask the previous panel about. At present, it is proposed that miners will be pardoned under the bill, which defines what a miner is. An issue that we have wondered about is how often other people who were not miners, such as family and friends—or even, based on what you have said today, off-duty policemen and women—were involved in picket lines. Was that a common occurrence? Was it mainly miners who were arrested, or were neighbours, friends and family members—spouses and sons or daughters—arrested, too? Did that happen?

Happy new year to everybody, including our panel members.

I am the MSP for Coatbridge and Chryston, which has a very rich mining tradition. One of our witnesses has mentioned Cardowan colliery, which is in Stepps, in my constituency. The Auchengeich memorial site is in my constituency, as well. I put on record my thanks to Willie Doolan and his team for the absolutely fantastic work that they do for the memorial every single year. There is an absolutely fantastic commemorative event, and I encourage all members, witnesses and anybody who is watching to go along to that event to see a mining community very much in action. I know that Richard Leonard attends it regularly.

I have quite a few questions. I am really glad to see the bill making its way through Parliament. It is long overdue, and it is about time that that happened. It will come as no surprise that I stand in complete solidarity with the mining communities that have been affected by the strikes.

Our business today is to scrutinise the bill to see how we can make it better. I will start by asking the panel about the lasting impact of the strikes and the subsequent charges and prosecutions on mining communities such as those in Moodiesburn, at Auchengeich, Cardowan or anywhere in the country. I am happy to take responses from witnesses in any order, convener.

I, too, thank both witnesses for their in-depth and, at times, moving testimonies. Given the constituency that I come from, I am very aware of the impact on mining communities and miners, but it was really useful to hear reflections on how police officers, in the main, were impacted. From the early evidence that we have heard, it is clear that the vast majority of police officers, including both witnesses, did not want to be doing that job. You did not go into the police to do that. We are talking about something that happened 35 years ago, but we could all hear the emotion in your voices. You were recollecting events that were clearly uncomfortable for you, so thank you very much for doing that.

You touched on the main questions that I was going to ask—that is the benefit of making a good, long statement, so do not apologise for that. My questions are about the impact on mining communities after the strikes. Are you able to talk a bit more about how the communities were impacted? What were the relationships with the police like in mining communities in the years and decades that followed? I know that you have already alluded to those issues.

If the individual who took time out to speak to the committee privately is watching this, or watches it at some point in future, I hope that she will be pleased with that pretty strong response from you, Lord Advocate. Thank you.

Convener, I think that there is something in the chat about David Harvie wanting in.