Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 9, 2024

Official Report 907KB pdf

---

Topical Question Time

The next item of business is topical question time. In order to get in as many questions as possible, succinct questions and responses would be appreciated.

Before calling the first question, I remind members of the sub judice rule and request that members not make specific references to cases that have been referred to the courts.

---

Post Office Employees (Potential Wrongful Convictions)

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Happy new year to you and to everyone in the chamber.

To ask the Scottish Government what action it can take to ensure that all people who were potentially wrongfully convicted as a result of the reported Horizon scandal are supported in coming forward if they wish for their conviction to be overturned. (S6T-01726)

The Horizon scandal is rightly causing great concern, and it is important to recognise the tireless work of campaigners who have led efforts for justice. Anyone who is wrongly convicted as a result of the Horizon scandal should have their conviction reversed and be entitled to compensation. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has already referred seven cases back to the appeal court for a fresh appeal, and in two of those cases, so far, the convictions have been overturned on appeal.

However, we are looking at what more can be done, and we are considering the idea of a pardon scheme. I am conscious that the United Kingdom Government has created a compensation scheme that requires a conviction to be reversed by an appeal court before someone can receive compensation. Therefore, today, I have written to the UK Secretary of State for Justice to ask for a meeting to discuss how best we can work together to ensure that anyone who is wrongly convicted as a result of the Horizon scandal can have their conviction reversed and still be entitled to compensation.

By the end of 2023, only 16 people in Scotland had come forward to have their conviction overturned. There are many more people who were not convicted but for whom the false accusations severely impacted their reputation, career and mental health. The full number of victims in Scotland is not yet known. What discussion has the Scottish Government had with the Crown Office and Prosecutor Fiscal Service regarding the number of people in Scotland who were potentially wrongly prosecuted? Does it expect to be liable for the cost of compensation?

Mr Choudhury is quite right to point out the massive personal impact on all the people who have been affected. The Scottish Government will have discussions with a full range of justice partners, and it is imperative that, in the Parliament, we stand up for everyone in Scotland who has been affected by the Horizon scandal.

It might be useful to quickly intimate the proactive steps that have already been taken by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which, on receipt of information on people who might be affected, has written proactively with information to about 80 people who could be affected and has encouraged people to make applications to the criminal conviction review body.

It is important that we send out a message to those who believe that they are a victim of a miscarriage of justice that they should make an application to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which is continuing its work. It is important to say that the appeal court is continuing its work, too.

The actions of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission are the first systemic effort of any jurisdiction in the UK to contact all the individuals who have potentially been affected.

I was expecting an answer on whether we are liable for compensation.

The Post Office has set aside £244 million in compensation for potential victims. Many victims have now died without having been able to claim the compensation or to clear their names, yet Fujitsu, the company that created the Horizon system, has not faced any financial implication and has reportedly been awarded more than 150 Government contracts since. What discussion is the Scottish Government having with the UK Government regarding the responsibility of Fujitsu in the scandal?

As I intimated in my original answer, I have written to the UK Government today about how we can work together and take matters forward.

On the issue of compensation, it is important to recognise that anyone who is convicted because of the failings of the Horizon information technology system can apply for compensation via the scheme that has been set up by the UK Government. It is important that we encourage and support people to do so. The scheme is available for anyone to apply to if they have been a victim of a miscarriage of justice, where their convictions were reversed on appeal out of time, or if they have spent time in prison as a result of a wrongful conviction or charge.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that any conviction that resulted from the introduction of the flawed Horizon system must be unsafe and flawed and should be quashed? Will the Scottish Government, working with the UK Government, consider introducing emergency legislation, if necessary, so that the greatest miscarriage of justice of our time can be redressed? Finally, in order to ensure that everyone whose life has been ruined gets compensation, will the cabinet secretary consider taking proactive steps, either by herself or through an agency, to reach out to every sub-postmaster and sub-postmistress in Scotland who might have been affected, to make sure that they get the compensation that they richly deserve?

As I intimated in my original answer, the Scottish Government is open to taking further action. First and foremost, we want to take the action that will be most effective for those here, in Scotland, who have been impacted by the scandal, and we have an open mind about the best way forward. We will, of course, work with the UK Government, which has particular responsibilities in that regard.

I intimate again to Mr Ewing that the action taken by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has been proactive. In spring 2020, the commission decided, as a matter of policy, to make all reasonable efforts to locate those who might have been affected and to encourage them to apply to the commission to have their convictions overturned. That is the gateway to ensuring that people receive the appropriate compensation.

I assure Mr Ewing and other members that we are looking at a wide range of issues because, first and foremost, we want to play our part in standing up for the people in Scotland who have been affected. It is our responsibility to play our part in helping to right the wrong that was undertaken by Post Office Limited and the scandal that surrounds it.

It appears that, during his three years as justice secretary, Humza Yousaf did not hold a single meeting about the Post Office Horizon scandal. That scandal is now firmly on the agenda because of a television drama.

Former police officer Mary Philp was not convicted but went to her grave wrongly accused of theft. Her daughter Myra, who has campaigned doggedly for years, wants to know when all Scottish victims will have their convictions quashed and their names cleared, and she points out that the powers for that lie with Scottish ministers.

I will certainly endeavour, on behalf of this Government, to work collaboratively to ensure that everyone in Scotland who has been affected can access justice and can right any wrong that has been done.

It is unfortunate that Mr Findlay has sought to overly politicise the matter when the problem has been in the making since 1999 and was caused by a UK-wide body—the Post Office—that has been scrutinised under reserved powers by successive UK Government ministers. He is correct in saying that the Post Office cannot prosecute in Scotland. Only the Crown Office, which is independent of politicians, can prosecute in Scotland. If the scandal shows us one thing, it is the value of having an independent prosecution system, not one in which a vested interest such as the Post Office is able to pursue prosecutions. Hundreds of people are now living with the consequences of that, not only in Scotland but across the UK.

---

XL Bully Dogs (Regulation of Ownership)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will reconsider its position on further regulating the ownership of American XL bully dogs in Scotland, in light of reports that widespread rehoming from England to Scotland is raising public safety and animal welfare concerns. (S6T-01718)

The Scottish Government is concerned to hear reports of XL bully dogs being moved to Scotland for rehoming. I have made it clear to the United Kingdom Government that there should be no impact on Scotland as a consequence of the policy that has been implemented. The UK Government’s response said that if an XL bully owner from England or Wales travelled to Scotland and sold or otherwise transferred or abandoned the dog to someone in Scotland, it is unlikely that that would be an offence.

The criminal law should provide clarity on whether an offence has been committed. The unintended consequence of the UK Government’s policy is that we are now seeing an influx of XL bully dogs to Scotland. It is important to ensure that Scotland does not become a safe haven or a dumping ground for XL bully dogs from England and Wales.

I confirm to Jamie Greene and the Parliament that, in the light of recent events, ministers are urgently reviewing the policy on XL bully dogs. Public safety will be paramount in our deliberations, and Parliament will be updated on a timetable for any policy change imminently.

The unintended consequences that we are seeing are a result not of the UK legislation, but of this Scottish Government failing to take action, which has led to the situation in which there is a huge amount of anecdotal evidence of rehoming across the border into Scotland. There is an online Facebook group with more than 20,000 members, where people are discussing the issue day in, day out. I understand that they are very well meaning. As an animal lover, I understand the sentiments behind some of the rehoming, but we do not understand its full consequences or what will happen.

The First Minister was very clear yesterday when he said to the media:

“I think it is important for us to make very clear that Scotland is not a safe haven for XL bully dogs.”

I agree with him. Will the minister now explain to the public what action this Scottish Government will take to ensure that the rhetoric on the subject is followed by action?

Given the lack of notice of the decision from the UK Government, and in the context of the different approach to dog control, I and officials have been reviewing the evidence on the situation in Scotland. We have met a wide variety of stakeholders over the winter to consider the evidence and their views on what work would be best in the Scottish context and to consider any unintended consequences. I have met the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Dogs Trust, the dog control coalition, individual clinical dog behaviourists, a victim of a dog attack, the Kennel Club, Blue Cross and the Edinburgh Dog and Cat Home. I met the Communication Workers Union this morning and Police Scotland on Thursday, and I have met the National Dog Warden Association. I have also instructed officials to undertake regional engagements with local stakeholders to look at ways for partners to work together to improve operational responses and enforcement and to aid community engagement to help to promote more responsible dog ownership. As I said in my first answer, the matter is under urgent review at the moment.

I say to the minister that it has been under urgent review for months. I am going to be frank, because I have been raising the issue in the chamber for months. Everything that we warned might happen is, sadly, now happening. Over the weekend, we saw the utterly horrific story of a dog that was trafficked from England to Scotland. There was an unsuccessful attempt to sell it online and the dog was then, horrendously, beaten to death and left on the street. I would not want to be the minister in charge of a policy who dithered and delayed on the issue for longer than was necessary, leading to another tragedy. Before it is too late, will the Scottish Government please announce a ban on these dogs before a single life—human or otherwise—is lost?

Whereas the UK Government announced its decision to ban this dog breed with no advance notice or consultation—

Months ago.

—we are approaching the matter in an evidence-based manner. [Interruption.]

Let us hear the minister.

No new breed type has been banned in the list for more than 30 years, and it is important to listen carefully to the views of dog control experts in order to inform our policy approach in the area. As I said in my first answer, the matter is under urgent review and the Parliament will be told about any policy change imminently.

The Scottish SPCA has said:

“There is no need for a caring owner in England or Wales to move a dog to Scotland, as they have until January 31 to register their dogs and comply with the conditions for exemption.”

Any owner moving a dog after 31 December will be committing an offence.

Jamie Greene said that there is evidence that XL bully dogs are being brought to Scotland. How will we prevent that if Scotland appears to be a safe haven? Does the answer not lie in Scotland being more aligned with England and Wales to ensure not just that we prevent such movements, but that we protect the welfare of dogs, some of which are being destroyed on the back of the policy?

As I have said, urgent consideration is being given to the matter. I would say to any dog owner that they will need to understand the effect of any possible ban that is introduced in Scotland. At this time, any purchase of an XL bully dog would be made in a context that may suggest that it would be preferable not to acquire such a dog at the present time in Scotland.

As everyone is, I am appalled by dog attacks. However, the answer does not lie in adopting such hasty and simplistic regulations. In the same way, the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 has not worked. Will the minister therefore consider amending the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010, which I introduced and which intervenes early when there are behavioural problems with any breed of dog, to make it more effective, as it places the blame and responsibility where they lie—on the breeder and the owner, not the dog?

A working group has been considering current legislation. I understand that the Welfare of Dogs (Scotland) Bill that has been introduced by Christine Grahame aims to highlight and raise awareness of responsible dog ownership—which, I think, we can all support. The Government welcomes any proposals that seek to improve animal welfare, and I look forward to working with Ms Grahame on the bill.

---

Flooding (Grants)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide funding for grants for those households and businesses flooded during storm Gerrit, in light of it providing such funding for those affected by storm Babet. (S6T-01721)

I recognise the efforts of local recovery partnerships, which have worked so hard to respond to storm Gerrit, and I express my sympathy for those who have had their lives disrupted by flooding.

The Scottish Government is committed to playing our part in supporting communities through such events. The Scottish Government provides £42 million annually to local authorities to fulfil their flood risk management obligations, and we have committed an additional £150 million over this parliamentary session to improve flood resilience. We also support communities through the Scottish welfare fund, through which grants can be provided to low-income households for emergencies such as flooding.

Storm Babet was a highly unusual weather event. Given the almost unprecedented Met Office red warnings for rain, we have provided additional grant support for households and businesses that have been flooded in affected local authority areas. However, we are sympathetic to the situation following storm Gerrit, and we will continue to engage with affected councils.

That is not good enough, because for my constituents who were flooded out of their homes just days after Christmas, the situation was just as traumatic as it had been for the people in Angus who received grants, so I ask the minister please not to insult them by saying that the situation in Angus was exceptional. If someone has two foot of water in their house when they wake up in the morning, that is exceptional. Will the minister therefore reconsider the decision?

I recognise very well the sentiment that Willie Rennie expresses on behalf of his constituents: for any individual household that is affected, the event will be traumatic—especially just days after Christmas.

Willie Rennie asked me to reconsider my decision. I clarify, in case he did not infer it from my answer to his original question, that a decision has not been taken. We are giving the issue careful consideration. We have engaged with Fife Council, which is preparing reports as we speak, and we will give the matter further consideration, in due course.

As I said, we are very sympathetic to the situation that is faced by Mr Rennie’s constituents, and we are giving careful consideration to what more support can be provided.

I will take that as a kind of “yes”, which I hope it is.

I hope that the minister is not just flannelling me, because people are flooded out of their homes now, and their businesses have been destroyed. Mohamed Khalid lost his business when water surged into his shop, destroying stock and expensive fridges and freezers. Matt Hooper woke up to two foot of water around his bed, and his fridge was floating in his living room. He is now homeless. Both have tried to get help, but none has been available. Will the minister come to Cupar and tell them to their faces that he is not going to give them money, or that they will get the money—the sooner, the better?

The Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Net Zero and Just Transition, Màiri McAllan, and I will be happy to engage directly with Willie Rennie. As I said in my original answer, I express my deepest sympathy to all who have been affected by the flooding. As I also said, we are giving the matter careful consideration and will continue to engage with our partners in local government to consider what more support can be provided.

I am keen to get more questions in, so let us have more concise questions and responses.

Funding is critical to support communities that are recovering from storms and the associated flood damage, but so is long-term planning and management in order to mitigate the impact, to build up resilience and to share best practice. Watercourses cross council boundaries, and local authorities might be reluctant to instigate measures that do not have direct local benefits. Without an holistic approach being taken to river basin management, communities will be left to suffer. Will the minister investigate plans to establish an organisation that would be responsible for river basin management and which would also be accountable to communities?

I thank Maurice Golden for his supplementary question. He will appreciate that the specific matters that he raised in his considered question lie within the responsibility of my colleague Màiri McAllan. I will be happy to ensure that the member’s remarks are passed on to Ms McAllan, who will, I am sure, be happy to engage with the member and provide a written response.

I have been contacted by many constituents across Angus and south Aberdeenshire who have lost much as a result of repeated flooding over recent months. Drainage systems are no longer adequate, other flood prevention measures are insufficient, and crisis funds and insurance do not cover the losses that are being experienced. Given that flooding is becoming more prevalent and severe, what is the Scottish Government’s long-term plan for flood prevention and mitigation to ensure that people can continue to live and work safely in affected areas?

No country can mitigate the risk of flooding entirely, but since 2008 the Scottish Government has made available £42 million per year for local authorities to invest in flood risk management actions. As I said earlier, that is in addition to £150 million that is being made available over the course of this parliamentary session to support delivery of flood resilience measures.

We have been working with stakeholders to develop the first flood resilience strategy for Scotland, with communities at its heart, which will form an integral part of shaping a climate-resilient Scotland. The strategy aims to initiate a transformational change to flood management in order that we can adapt our places and set Scotland on a long-term course towards sustainable flood resilience. We will move to a public consultation in due course, and our intention is to publish the strategy later this year.

I rise as a member whose constituency has a very high level of flood risk. Despite what Willie Rennie said, we have all seen the lamentable lack of support that has been given to residents and businesses in Brechin. Answers to freedom of information requests that I have in my possession show that, even as late as last month, Angus Council was still struggling to find capacity and resources to even begin to pick up the pieces.

My question is very simple. Why is the Scottish Government so slow at responding to these crises? What lessons can it learn from the rapid response that we saw down south to storm Henk? Is not it time that ministers got their act together—[Interruption.] I see members on the Government front bench laughing at this question. That is a ridiculous response, and the minister should be ashamed. Is not it time that ministers got their act together on flood emergency response—full stop?

I compare and contrast Mr Kerr’s question with the original question from Willie Rennie, which was absolutely focused on the interests of his constituents. It is a shame that Mr Kerr chose to try to score a political point on the matter.

This is a serious issue that affects all countries. We have established a task force that has met on multiple occasions to respond to the particularly exceptional challenges that resulted from storm Babet last year. We are committed to working with our local authority partners and local recovery groups to ensure that we can improve our flood resilience, both in the long term and in responding to specific challenges. However, as we recognise from the events, climate change and its implications are not simply a matter for the future: they are with us here and now, which makes it utterly lamentable and shameful that the United Kingdom Conservative Government has so drastically watered down its commitment to net zero.

That concludes topical questions.