 The next item of business is a statement by Michael Matheson on the impact of policing on communities during the minor strike. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions. I call on Michael Matheson to begin. I am pleased to come to Parliament to address members about the Government's plans to initiate an independent review of the impact of policing on affected communities in Scotland during the minor's strike. Last September, in answer to an oral parliamentary question, I advised that the Scottish Government was addressing various issues around proposals for a review of policing of the minor strike of 1984-85. I committed to announcing my decision in due course. I know that the statement has been keenly awaited by interested parties, not least by individuals and communities from our mining heartlands, and I thank them for their patience. I am also grateful for their role in getting to this point today. She generally understood that the 1980s represented an extremely turbulent and difficult time for many communities throughout Scotland, many communities in particular. I know from the conversations that I have had that although more than three decades have passed since the main minor's dispute, the scars from experience still run deep. In some areas of the country most heavily impacted, the sense of having been hurt and wronged remains corrosive and alienating. That is true of many who were caught up in the dispute and its aftermath. Those employed in the mining industry at the time, of course, but also wider families and communities. The minor's strike was also a difficult period for the police, with many individual officers finding themselves in extremely challenging situations, and police and community relations coming under unprecedented strain. Whilst things have moved on considerably in the decades that have followed, the question of how best to learn from this period remains. How best can we aid understanding, reconciliation and inclusion? One approach is the let sleeping dogs lie approach, in other words, to do nothing. This is, some might say, the approach adopted by various Governments in the past, but if the hope had been that the sense of injustice and division would heal naturally without intervention then it seems to have been misplaced. Ignoring the issue does not make it go away. I understand the great disappointment that arose in October 2016 when the then Home Secretary Amber Rudd announced that the UK Government was ruling out an inquiry into events at the Orgrave coaking plant in South Yorkshire. The battle of Orgrave, as it became known, was one of the most notorious flash points in the minor strike. I made clear at the time that I thought that that was the wrong decision, wrong not least because it seemed clear that key elements in the mix that needed to be understood were the attitudes and perhaps actions of the then UK Government. An alternative to that do nothing approach put to me strongly by campaigners is to honestly address some of the key issues through a focused investigation specifically into the policing of the minor strike in Scotland. When I met campaigners, including Neil Findlay, whose commitment to this matter I readily acknowledged, I agreed to explore that option as sympathetically as possible, within the constraints placed on ministers in this Parliament by the devolution settlement. A key issue is what kind of review is possible and crucially what value would it add given where we are today. It is important to recognise, for example, that there is already effective provision available for anyone who considers that they have experienced a miscarriage of justice in terms of criminal conviction. The Scottish criminal justice system has established procedures to deal with alleged miscarriages of justice. As I made clear to campaigners, the Scottish criminal cases review commission is the appropriate route if anyone believes that they have suffered in this particular way. However, wrongful conviction is just one form of injustice. The question is how might we better address wider but equally distressing forms. This has come home to me in my dealings with campaigners. I have been struck, as I said, by the continuing deep feeling and sense of injustice, a sense that our fellow citizens feel that they have been misrepresented and ill-treated, that they wish their side of the story to be told and that any appropriate lessons are learnt to avoid unnecessary division and distress in the future. I have given this careful consideration. In particular, I have had to look closely at a significant number of technical challenges. I want to ensure that anything that we do is robust, proportionate and fair. I have concluded that doing nothing is not an option. While what I can do is limited by the powers devolved to Scottish ministers, I am determined that the Scottish Government should do what it can to do right by those affected by the dispute. Consequently, I can announce that John Scott QC has agreed to undertake an independent review of the matter. His remit will be to investigate and report on the impact of policing on affected communities in Scotland during the period of the minor strike from March 1984 to March 1985. I can announce, too, that John Scott will be assisted by an advisory panel comprising of our former colleague Dennis Canavan, former assistant chief constable Kate Thompson and Professor Jim Murdoch of Glasgow University. That grouping will bring real authority and a balanced insight into the issues that are raised. Their work, which will begin with some preparatory activities over the summer, will include a review of the publicly available files held at the national records of Scotland and the national archives in London. It will also include gathering evidence from those directly affected by or having knowledge of the dispute and report the findings. To allow effective engagement and consideration of the issues, I have asked for an interim report in early 2019. A final report setting out lessons and recommendations for any other action required will follow by June 2019 and be made publicly available. I hope that my decision to establish this review underlines the importance that the Scottish Government attaches to the issue and our understanding that there are questions about the impact on communities that remain to be answered. I am pleased to say that Nicky Wilson, the president of the national union of mine workers, gave his wholehearted backing to this approach when I spoke to him this morning. He said that, following the justice secretary's earlier meeting with the NUM, I am really welcome the leadership that has been demonstrated by the Scottish Government on this issue. Rather than a potentially costly and drawn-out public inquiry, we will have a time-limited and focused independent review, which I hope will really get to the heart of the injustice that is experienced by mining communities at that time. We have good relations with the police and no wish to pursue a vendetta, but it is high time that what mining communities endured during the strike is properly understood. Going forward, my expectation is that the process and outcome of this review will help to bring a degree of closure, crucially, of a positive kind through openness, disclosure and understanding, in keeping with the truth and reconciliation approach that is suggested by the Scottish Police Federation. It does not, of course, remove what I see as an obligation on the UK Government to fully explore the extent of any political interference by the UK Government at that time. Therefore, I have written to the new Home Secretary to renew my call, first made in November 2016, for the current UK Government to institute an inquiry. Although my earlier plea was rejected, I remain of the view that it would be better for all concerned if, in a spirit of transparency, justice and reconciliation, the UK Government would now follow our example. Through this independent review, Scotland will certainly lead the way in ensuring that the experiences of those affected by the dispute in the 1980s are properly recognised. Some of our communities have been blighted by the shadow of that time for too long. I hope that members will join me in encouraging those affected by the dispute to engage with the review and to welcome the work of John Scott and the advisory panel as an opportunity to acknowledge those difficult times and truly learn from them. The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in the statement. I intend to allow up to about 20 minutes for questions after which we really must move on, unfortunately, to the next item of business. Time is very tight, so I can ask members who would wish to ask questions to press their request-to-speak buttons now. I call first of all Liam Kerr 1 minute 30 seconds, please, Mr Kerr. I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement. Where there are questions and where issues remain unresolved in the minds of the public and those who were directly involved in the dispute and those affected by the dispute, it is always important that we seek to understand and look to learn the lessons of the past. Given the importance of the inquiry and panel, people will be very interested in the composition of the advisory panel, so can the cabinet secretary clearly detail what the selection criteria are for those members? Furthermore, I note the cabinet secretary's point that the minor strike was also a difficult period for police, with many individual officers finding themselves in challenging situations. What guarantees can the cabinet secretary offer to police officers, both past and present, who might be concerned about the results of the review? The panel, which has been put together for the purposes of the independent review, is to ensure that we have sufficient legal expertise. The expertise that Jim Murdoch brings as a professor of law at Glasgow University will help to support the group in the work that they are undertaking. Kate Thompson, giving her policing expertise, and Dennis Canavan, giving his long-standing connection with mining communities across Scotland. John Scott, of course, has an outstanding recognition for his ability around criminal matters but also in the human rights field. On that basis, the advisory panel, working with John Scott, will give us the right balance. As I mentioned in my statement and as Nicky Wilson stated himself, this is not a vendetta against the police and the Scottish Police Federation believe that a truth-and-reconciliation approach would be helpful in addressing those underlying concerns. However, the independent review that I am sanctioning to go ahead will help to address some of those long-standing issues of mistrust that continue to exist. However, I hope that the member today will recognise that the UK Government has in addressing that matter. Today, I have written to the Home Secretary saying that the UK Government needs to do more on that matter. I would ask the member today to show his support for that and to write to his party colleagues in the UK asking them to do exactly the same thing. I thank the Justice Secretary not just for the site of his statement but for the content of his statement. I do not often praise ministers of this Government today, but today I am delighted to make an exception. 33 years after the strike, fallen three decades of campaigning by a great many, many people, far better than me, we now have an independent review. The first step, I hope, is to take a full UK-wide public inquiry. Today's announcement is significant in the fight for justice for so many individuals, families and communities across the former Scottish coalfield. I hope that that reverberates all the way to number 10 Downing Street. The release of the Cabinet papers under the 30-year rule and the fallout from the Hillsborough inquiry exposed how the police and judiciary acted under the centralised political direction of the then Thatcher Government and were instructed to defeat the strike, no matter the cost. We know that Scottish miners suffered disproportionately from the impact of that policing strategy. Many lost not just their jobs but their relationship, their homes, their mental and physical health. Many were blacklisted and others went to their graves, victims of a miscarriage of justice. I hope that that review avoids the errors of the mesh review. I hope that it is thorough and inclusive. I hope that it provides the opportunity for those to come forward and give evidence with their legal advisers so that we can finally shine a light on this enormously important period in our country's recent history. I hope that we leave the door open to a full public inquiry if that is indeed deemed necessary. Finally, I thank all those people, some of them, the longer with us, who have given me unstinting support in pursuing this campaign in Parliament and for those in the gallery today. More important, let me put on the record my admiration and thanks for those who, over 30 years, have never given up the fight for truth and justice. This is their victory and now, after 33 years, let the truth be told. Before I call you, Cabinet Secretary, can I say to those in the gallery—I do understand why you are applauding, but we do not permit applauding in the public area in Parliament, but I do understand it—gently said to you. Cabinet Secretary. Can I welcome Neil Findlay's comments on this matter and recognise again his long-standing commitment interest in this issue in pursuing this particular matter over an extended period of time? In Mr Findlay's comments, he wanted to ensure that the independent review will be thorough and inclusive, and I can ensure him that that is the intention behind the purposes of establishing the independent review and individuals who have been appointed to it, as well as individuals of significant integrity and who will ensure that the matter is pursued in an open and transparent fashion. I have also discussed with John Scott the approach that could be taken in order to ensure that the affected communities have an opportunity to participate in that process. Some of the early work that they will be taking forward is engaging with relevant stakeholders, including those politicians who have an interest in this matter, to look at how they can frame their work in a way that ensures that those who were affected and have been affected over many years by this particular dispute have an opportunity to engage in the process that they undertake. I was very encouraged by the discussion that I had with Nicky Wilson earlier on in his commitment to supporting the work of the group in reviewing the matter. I can assure the member that it will be thorough and that it will be inclusive, and I hope that it will help to draw some closure to some of the long-standing issues that have been left for far, far too long. I have 10 members wishing to ask questions in only 14 minutes when we must move on to the next item, so please try to make your questions crisp. Fulton MacGregor, followed by Maurice Corry. Fulton MacGregor, thank you. I will remind the chamber quickly whether I am the PLO to the cabinet secretary. The cabinet secretary will be aware that my constituency, Cope Bidgin Christen, has a rich mining heritage, and many of those communities remain active, for example in Moody's Bond, home of the Auckland Geek mining disaster. Will the cabinet secretary reiterate that assurance to those communities and the nation as a whole that it will be a full and transparent inquiry? It will be open and transparent, and members, as I have mentioned, have been appointed specifically to help to enable that. That is the reason why I have also appointed the advisory panel to work alongside John Scott on those issues. If I assist members in considering some of the work that John Scott has already conducted on behalf of the Scottish Government, one in particular was at the area of work that he undertook on the issue of stop and search, which was a very inclusive approach to allowing people to express their views and to express any concerns around that matter. I certainly expect that approach to be taken forward by the independent inquiry that he is now taking forward. The cabinet secretary in his statement spoke of significant technical challenges. Would he be able to outline to the chamber what those challenges are? Ensuring that they are within devolved competencies. Can the cabinet secretary explain why the review that he has announced will not look at wider-ranging issues? There has obviously been a number of significant disputes over many years across Scotland and across the whole of the UK. However, the nature of the minor dispute was one that affected communities across the country and affected them in a significant way. In the basis of the given nature and the scale of the minor dispute and the impact that it had on those communities, mining communities, in my view, it merits the independent inquiry to be taken forward. Can I commend the minister not just for this initiative but for his considered tone that he took in his statement? It is very welcome indeed. Will the independent review have the power to compel witnesses? Will those effect on their families have access to legal support, should they wish to give evidence? There will not be an opposition where they can compel witnesses because it has not been undertaken as a public inquiry. However, I have no doubt that, if the independent review is taken forward appropriately, willing parties will be prepared to engage in that process. It is an opportunity to bring individuals together in order to explore and consider those matters. Given the members who have been appointed to the advisory panel, given their backgrounds and the background of John Scott, I have no doubt that those who have an interest in this issue will engage with it and engage in it in a way that is purposeful and will help to support the work that they are trying to take forward as part of their investigation. John Finnie, followed by Clare Adamson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am very grateful to the cabinet secretary. It really is very good news, and the cabinet secretary alluded to a previous report done by Mr Scott, and I recall that Mr Scott described that the police's beat should be at the forefront of defending citizens' rights. During the period of this review, we will look at the special demonstration squad that was active. Will you write to the Home Secretary seeking co-operation from the Pitchford inquiry to help the review to discover the extent of undercover policing from south of the border and, using your own words, the corrosive and alienating impact that might have had in aggravating what was already a difficult situation for mining communities? The member will be aware of my view on the issues relating to the Pitchford inquiry and the reason that I believe that that should be extended to Scotland and to Northern Ireland, given the nature of the SDS's work as part of the metropolitan police. In relation to the specific points that were made regarding the review that was undertaken by John Scott and the advisory group, once I have the six-monthly report from them and if there are issues there that demonstrate that there is a requirement for greater co-operation from the UK Government, or if they are flagged up to meet an earlier stage, then I will certainly make representation to the UK Government to request that. I was a teenager when my community was affected by those issues. I vividly remember the Government manufactured social tension between minor steel workers and the police. Does the cabinet secretary agree with me that it is essential that we learn from what has happened to ensure that those failures are never replicated ever again and that no trade union faces an attack from government that we experienced at that time? I was at school at the time when the dispute took place and I can still remember the scenes from the minor strike during the course of that period. Although I was brought up in the south of Glasgow, the minor strike even reached into our community by those who had families and friends who were affected by and trucks and everything that was passing through our local area during the course of that dispute. I completely agree with the member. There are real issues of concern around the way in which the UK Government acted in such a way to undermine trade unions at that particular point and the impact that it had on local communities. I hope that, through the instigation of the independent review, we will get a greater understanding of that and provide greater transparency to that from the course of work that will be taken forward over the course of the year and how it impacts on those mining communities across Scotland. Liam McArthur, followed by Ben Macpherson. I pay tribute to Neil Findlay for his efforts on that. I thank the cabinet secretary for his statement. He is very much welcome and the chairing by John Scott is good news for some reassurance to both those in the mining communities but also to the police that, given his work on not just on stop and search but on biometrics, that he will be very thorough but also even-handed. However, in relation to the reference that he makes to procedures for dealing with alleged miscarriages of justice, could he advise the chamber if he is aware of any such cases being brought forward or steps being taken to build such a case? I am not aware of any individual cases. However, there is a legal mechanism there for anyone who believes that that is the case. Subject to legal advice that they receive from their own legal agent, they can then lodge a request with the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission if they believe that they have a case that relates to a miscarriage of justice. The legal mechanism is there but I would always advise any individual who is considering something of that nature to take legal advice first of all before they make such an application so that they make the best use of the mechanisms for making an application as possible. Can the cabinet secretary explain why the independent review will not look at political interference? One of the technical challenges that I mentioned is the devolved nature of responsibilities in this area. The ability in this area is limited because of the nature of the UK Government's involvement and the fact that the Scottish Parliament was not established at the time of the dispute. Therefore, the policing of it was the responsibility of the UK Government. That therefore limits the scope of which we would be able to look at these matters. Even if we were to establish a public inquiry under specific legislation, we would be extremely curtailed in what we could look at, given the nature of reserved and devolved matters. However, I am notwithstanding that, I have absolutely no doubt that the independent review that we are establishing will be very thorough and detailed in considering these matters. I will clearly listen to evidence from those communities that were affected on how they believe that they had an impact on them and how aspects of political interference may have happened at that particular point. Johann Lamont, followed by Rona Mackay. Thank you. In welcoming the statement, I reflect on the way in which even those of us who were very supportive of the miners were led to believe at that time that there was widespread criminality in the mining community's absolute shocking use of the power of the state. Can I maybe in particular flag up to the minister, given the recent history of independent reviews like that into the use of mesh, which failed completely to secure the confidence of victims? What steps has the cabinet secretary taken to secure the review's independence? Will he confirm that the review has the authority to go wherever the evidence takes it, and would he reflect that it would be helpful if he would confirm that it is not absolutely ruling out a full public inquiry, if necessary, in the future, when the review reports? Cabinet Secretary? I have just made mention of the reasons for the public inquiry in Scotland, which are very limited if any real effect would be different from what has been conducted through the independent review. However, we will wait to see what the outcome is from this particular independent review in the first place. Johann Lamont makes a good point about the injustices that are felt by those in the communities that were affected by the dispute. Of course, I can confirm that the review acting independently will be able to follow the line of evidence that it sees as being appropriate and to engage with communities and individuals in a way that it sees as appropriate for the purposes of carrying out their inquiry over the coming months. On that point, John Scott has said that he is keen to listen to individuals and communities directly affected. Can the cabinet secretary assure us that there will be a wide variety of ways for people who have been affected by the dispute to have their views heard? The discussions that I had with John Scott in approaching them to take on this particular role, he gave me an assurance that he would seek to find a range of different ways in which to engage with communities, whether that be through individual meetings or whether it be through public meetings or other types of community-based approaches. He is keen to ensure that, as many people who are interested in expressing their views and telling them their story, they ensure that they facilitate that as part of the process of taking evidence on the matter. I have no doubt that their engagement with a range of different stakeholders from the NUM and to those here in this chamber will help to shape the approach that they take in ensuring that they allow as many people as possible to express their view and to tell their story over the course of the coming months when they are taking evidence in different parts of the country. That concludes questions to the minister. I thank all members for the way they asked their questions as we managed to get every question in. I am going to do a very slight pause as we move on to the next item of business.