Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 21, 2024

Official Report 942KB pdf

---

Post Office (Horizon System) Offences (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-13292, in the name of Angela Constance, on the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences (Scotland) Bill at stage 1.

15:04  

I open the debate with thanks to members of the Parliament for passing the motion to treat the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences (Scotland) Bill as an emergency bill, reflecting the collective desire of the Scottish Parliament to act at pace to ensure that the victims of the Post Office Horizon scandal can finally have their convictions overturned and access redress.

I will first highlight how we arrived here. In 1996, the Post Office introduced the Horizon software, an online accounting system engineered by Fujitsu, in some of its branches. The software was rolled out across the network of branches in 2000. From there began the story of one of the largest miscarriages of justice that this country has ever seen.

Faults in the software meant that some sub-postmasters’ accounts showed false shortfalls. What happened thereafter, and the horrific experiences of the sub-postmasters, are well catalogued. However, given that they are the victims in this saga—and they lie at the very heart of the bill—it is important that we revisit that painful history.

Over a 20-year period, sub-postmasters were forced to repay shortfalls shown by an erroneous system. Throughout the United Kingdom, many of them were suspended or dismissed from jobs that were a vital part of their lives. Others were prosecuted, with nearly 1,000 convicted and some imprisoned for no fault of their own. The allegations and prosecutions had a ruinous impact on innocent sub-postmasters and their families. Some were made bankrupt, some lost their homes, some were branded thieves by their communities and some took their own lives.

Following various unsuccessful attempts to expose the scandal, in 2016, a group of 555 people took the Post Office to the High Court in England. In December 2019, Post Office Ltd reached a settlement of £57.75 million to conclude the case. The findings in the litigation identified and confirmed beyond doubt the extent of the problems with Horizon and the adverse impact that those problems had on prosecutions across the UK.

I pay tribute to the sub-postmasters who have worked to expose the failings of Post Office Ltd, and who have been relentless in their pursuit of justice. While we cannot simply undo their traumatic experiences, we must do all that we can to address the miscarriage of justice.

The Lord Advocate is not with us this afternoon, but is it not the case that, back in 2013, the Crown Office was informed by the Post Office and its lawyers that there were flaws with the Horizon system? Indeed, the Crown Office provisionally decided to terminate prosecutions. Does the cabinet secretary believe that we have had an adequate explanation from the Crown Office as to why it continued with the prosecutions despite having evidence and being told that the Horizon system was flawed? Was the Crown Office not at best naive in wholly swallowing what it was told by Post Office Ltd?

I am sure that Mr Ewing will forgive me if I resist the opportunity to get drawn into the details that the Lord Advocate has now laid out twice in parliamentary statements—and she has also answered an extensive number of questions. The one thing that I would point Mr Ewing and other members to is the High Court opinion that was published on 30 April regarding those convicted cases. The judgment that was made by the court on 30 April endorsed the approach taken by the Crown Office and that taken by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in its assessment of the different circumstances in which Horizon played a role and in concluding that the appeals should succeed.

On 13 March, the UK Government introduced its Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill at Westminster, which aims to overturn convictions of sub-postmasters who have suffered as a result of the Post Office Horizon information technology scandal. However, the bill as introduced excluded Scotland and Northern Ireland from its remit. Despite repeated attempts to engage with the UK Government and our requests to take a UK-wide approach to the bill to ensure parity of justice for all sub-postmasters, the UK Government excluded Scotland from the remit of its bill. However, we have always maintained that, although a single UK bill would be the best way to ensure that all postmasters could access justice on an equal footing, we would not hesitate to pursue a Scottish bill, should that be deemed necessary. It is now clear that a Scottish bill is the only way to ensure that sub-postmasters can have their convictions quashed and, as a result, be entitled to UK Government compensation.

While talking about the bill, it is important to highlight the excellent work that has been carried out by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. As members know, the determination of innocence or guilt in criminal cases in Scotland is usually, rightly, a matter for the independent judiciary, and robust processes already exist under Scots law to address potential miscarriages of justice. The commission is an independent body that has the power to review and investigate cases where it is alleged that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. Under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, where a miscarriage of justice may have occurred and it is in the interests of justice to do so, the commission can refer a case to the High Court for a fresh appeal. Such a reference can be made at any time, regardless of whether an appeal has already been considered.

A number of Horizon cases have been referred to the High Court by the commission, and a number of convictions have subsequently been overturned on appeal. Of course, the High Court referrals represent only those who have come forward to have their cases considered. A number of the cases affected by the Horizon IT failings are more than 20 years old, with some of the victims having passed away. Many other victims are in declining health or have, understandably, lost faith in the justice system and do not wish to engage further.

In 2020, the commission took the unusual step of writing to those whose cases may have been impacted by the tainted Horizon evidence to advise them that they could have grounds to challenge their conviction. The majority of people who were written to did not contact the commission. The current system relies on sub-postmasters choosing to engage with the commission, which then makes a reference to the High Court for an appeal to be heard. Many people might not want to go through that process, given their lack of trust in the system. The process also relies on there being evidence to support the grounds of appeal, but in many cases that evidence no longer exists. Continuing in that way would therefore not achieve the objective of ensuring that all wrongful convictions are quashed.

Before we get to stage 2, would it be possible to get some information about the cases that have been before the criminal appeal court and any information about what is in the pipeline? It would be useful to know how many cases we might be dealing with.

It might be somewhat difficult to access historical information, given the passage of time, and I want to be very up front with members on that. I can confirm for members the number of cases that are in process, and I will do that in writing tonight. In short, 19 individuals have responded to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. Six of those have successfully appealed recently, two have cases that are currently in the appeal process and the commission is currently reviewing nine cases. I will follow up with as much detail as is available.

I recognise the gravity of taking the unusual step of quashing convictions by way of legislation. However, the unprecedented scale of the miscarriages of justice that have been caused by the Horizon IT system means that the steps that are proposed by the bill are necessary. The aim of the bill is simply to provide a quick, fair and equal solution for all sub-postmasters who were wrongly convicted as a result of the impact of the defective Horizon IT system. Through the bill, we want to ensure that Scottish sub-postmasters are not disadvantaged compared with those in the rest of the UK in respect of the quashing of convictions and that they are able to access the UK Government compensation scheme.

The bill as introduced provides that convictions for “relevant offences” will be automatically quashed when the bill comes into force. The bill provides that the conviction must have taken place before the coming into force of the legislation. At present, the bill also provides that the conviction must not have been considered by the High Court in the context of an appeal. However, I will lodge an amendment after the debate today to remove the exclusion of High Court appeals. That is, in my view, a fairer way to deal with those who may have sought to challenge their conviction by lodging an appeal, especially at a time when the flaws in the Horizon system were not known about. As the UK bill includes an exclusion for Court of Appeal cases, I have written to the Minister for Enterprise, Markets and Small Business, Kevin Hollinrake, and received a written assurance from him that the UK Government will provide identical access to compensation schemes irrespective of whether the conviction is quashed on a different basis from that of the rest of the UK.

The bill sets out five conditions that must be met in order for the conviction to be quashed by it. Those conditions are deliberately designed so as to not require any element of discretion in order to be applied, and allow for the automatic quashing of convictions that fall within the ambit of the legislation. The five conditions relate to the date on which the offence was committed or the offences were committed; the type of offence; the need for the individual both to have been working in a post office and to have carried out the offence in connection with Post Office business; and the need for the Horizon system to have been in use by that post office at the time of the offence.

I will turn to a couple of those conditions in particular. The bill covers offences that were committed between 23 September 1996 and 31 December 2018. That matches the timeframe in which the Horizon system and its pilots are known to have been in operation, with 31 December being the point at which the roll-out of the current version of the Horizon system, which is considered to be robust, was concluded.

The list of offences that are covered by the bill is one area in which the bill differs from its UK counterpart. The offences covered by the bill are embezzlement, fraud, theft and uttering. Embezzlement and uttering are not offences that exist in England and Wales. Conversely, the bill does not include the offence of money laundering or any equivalent to the English and Welsh offence of handling stolen goods. The offences selected are those that were prosecuted in Scotland in cases involving the tainted evidence from the Horizon IT system.

The bill also contains details of the administrative processes for identifying which convictions have been quashed, securing the amendment of the records of those convictions, and notifying relevant individuals. There are two important provisions in that regard that I would like to highlight to members. First, the bill places a duty on the Scottish ministers to take all reasonable steps to identify those convictions and to notify anyone whose conviction has been quashed. Secondly, the bill places a duty on the Scottish ministers to consider representations made to them by a convicted person or a third party that someone has a conviction for a relevant offence. That will ensure that, where a conviction is not identified by the Scottish ministers but a person believes that their conviction satisfies the criteria and has been quashed, the Scottish ministers are obliged to consider representations made on that person’s behalf.

A further difference in the Scottish bill is that it empowers the Scottish ministers to impose a requirement on any person to provide information that they hold which the Scottish ministers consider is necessary for the fulfilment of their functions. There is no direct counterpart to that power in the UK bill. That power has been included on the basis that the Scottish ministers will need to obtain information from other persons in order to successfully identify the convictions that have been quashed by the bill. The required information is likely to be held by a range of organisations, including the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, the Crown Office, Post Office Ltd, Police Scotland and the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service.

I am of the view that stage 3 of the bill should not be completed until the equivalent UK bill has been passed by the UK Parliament, so as to allow us to consider any amendments to the UK bill and make equivalent amendments where appropriate. We are absolutely committed to doing everything in our power to minimise any time lags between the United Kingdom bill and the Scottish bill coming into force. It is my intention, therefore, to seek to hold the amending part of stage 3 before summer recess, once it is clearer what the final form of the UK bill will be, but for the stage 3 debate on the bill as amended to be held only once the UK bill is passed.

I will also seek to shorten the timeframe for the bill receiving royal assent. I have already written to the offices of the Advocate General, the Lord Advocate, the Attorney General and the Secretary of State for Scotland indicating our desire to accelerate post-stage 3 consideration. Once the bill comes into force, Scottish ministers will work closely with justice partners in identifying those convictions that are quashed by the bill, securing the amendment of the records of those convictions and notifying relevant individuals.

As the bill rightly undergoes scrutiny, I am committed to working constructively with members across the chamber to ensure that Scottish postmasters are not left behind and that they receive the parity of justice that they rightfully deserve. I know that the nature of the bill is unprecedented, and that, as parliamentarians, we are making decisions that we have never had to make before. I hope members will agree that the bill is now the only way to overturn the horrendous miscarriages of justice that postmasters in Scotland have suffered, and I will endeavour to work closely with members on taking it forward.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences (Scotland) Bill.

I issue a gentle reminder to those who wish to participate in the debate that if they have not already pressed their request-to-speak buttons, they should do so now.

15:21  

The Post Office Horizon IT system generated a wave of unexplained financial deficits, with black holes appearing suddenly in branch accounts across the country. Post Office executives concluded that hundreds of sub-postmasters—trusted pillars of local communities—were all, in fact, thieves. That was utterly implausible, but those decent people were bullied and coerced into paying back vast sums that they had not taken.

Many of those innocent people were dragged through the criminal courts, where they were wrongly convicted. They were steamrollered by the justice system and their desperate protestations were dismissed. Left ostracised, humiliated and financially ruined, many were broken and went to an early grave. Some did so with a terrible sense of shame.

When Phil and Fiona Cowan reported apparent shortfalls at their branch in Edinburgh, they were told that there were no problems with Horizon. That lie—that no one else had questioned the veracity of Horizon—was a standard tactic. Having been charged with false accounting, Fiona was spat at in the street. She died of an accidental overdose in 2009, not having been told that the charges against her had been dropped. Phil says:

“I have no doubt in my mind that the horror of that ... Post Office fiasco was a major factor in her death.”

In 2009, Caren Lorimer was forced to admit embezzlement from her post office in Kilmarnock. As the mum of a four-year-old son, she did so to avoid being sent to prison. Her husband David is still ensnared in Scotland’s glacial justice system, fighting to clear her name. Like Fiona Cowan, Caren did not live long enough to see the groundbreaking ITV drama “Mr Bates vs The Post Office”. Nor did former police officer Mary Philp, who was publicly branded a thief and suspended from her branch in Auchtermuchty.

In Greenock, Keith Macaldowie was brought to the brink of suicide after being forced to resign and pay thousands of pounds to the Post Office. Rab Thomson was also falsely accused of theft from Cambusbarron post office. His own lawyer advised him to plead guilty to a crime that he did not commit—worse still, a crime that did not even happen. Rab describes his ordeal as “degrading and embarrassing” and laments the unbearable strain that it put on his late mother, Margaret.

Sisters Rose Stewart and Jacquie El Kasaby were ordered to hand over thousands of pounds after being falsely accused of stealing from their post office in Glasgow’s Gorbals. They knew that they were innocent but they say that they were made to feel ashamed, as if they were pieces of dirt.

The Post Office-Fujitsu Horizon scandal is perhaps the greatest mass miscarriage of justice in our country’s legal history. However, this was no mere computer glitch. It was worse than that—much worse.

The Post Office, a once trusted institution, appears to have fallen under the spell of some kind of boardroom mafia. For almost two decades, it directed armies of aggressive lawyers and thuggish investigators; it sought mediation with victims and then sabotaged the process with bad faith; it aggressively hounded and crushed those whom it knew to be innocent; and it weaponised the criminal justice system in Scotland just as it did in England and Wales. When the truth began to slowly emerge, it lied, lied and continued to lie, conniving and corrupt. The scale and audacity of the cover-up was breathtaking and reprehensible, with a judge calling the Post Office’s dishonest defence of Horizon

“the 21st century equivalent of maintaining that the earth is flat”.

My constituent Rab Thomson is from Cambus, not Cambusbarron, which is in Stirling.

We have heard, consistent with what Russell Findlay has said, that the Post Office, its lawyers and UK Government ministers continued to support the Horizon system during 2013 to 2015, by which time we knew of the issues with the software and there were worrying levels of deliberate and sustained concealment and deception. Given that, does the member think that there should be criminal proceedings against the lawyers and those in the UK Government and the Post Office who carried on that deception?

I apologise to Mr Brown’s constituent for the geographical mix-up. The Post Office inquiry will fully get to the bottom of all those matters. I will come on to the issue of criminal prosecutions.

It was 2009 when Computer Weekly magazine reported the first concerns about Fujitsu’s Horizon system. Sub-postmaster Alan Bates, who is a true hero of modern Britain, launched and led a campaign for justice.

For the media, telling a complex story about a flawed IT system has been challenging, but some journalists have been dogged in their pursuit. Nick Wallis was doing the hard yards long before the drama “Mr Bates vs The Post Office” reached our television screens. His website, www.postofficescandal.uk, contains an abundance of detailed and clear information. He also contributed to sustained coverage in Private Eye, whose in-depth report “Justice Lost in the Post” is compelling. That credits numerous politicians, not least my Conservative colleague and former MP James Arbuthnot, who fought tirelessly for victims.

We know who some of the villains are, who some of the victims are and who some of the heroes are. The on-going public inquiry will continue to work on those fronts, but what we do not yet know is exactly what happened here, in Scotland, where the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service had sole responsibility for prosecuting every single Horizon case.

In England and Wales, all prosecutions were conducted by the Post Office. It controlled the evidence and it decided what to disclose and what to keep hidden from defence lawyers and courts. There is evidence that the Post Office perverted the course of justice, and I urge a robust criminal investigation, but why did the Crown Office continue to put Scottish sub-postmasters in the dock after it was widely known that Horizon evidence was not reliable?

Some legal experts believe that, with the Crown Office in control of all Scottish cases, our sub-postmasters should have been protected. The Crown Office had to be independently convinced about the integrity of the Post Office evidence, and its prosecutors had to stand up in court and lead that evidence with absolute confidence.

Furthermore, under Scots Law, Horizon evidence would have needed to be corroborated by other evidence. Was the corroboration rule properly applied? In one recorded interview, Caren Lorimer was told by a Strathclyde Police detective that Horizon was

“completely and utterly fool proof”

and that nobody would believe her. Fearful of being thrown behind bars, she pled guilty. A desperate young mum’s confession to the Scottish police was used to corroborate Horizon evidence in a Scottish court.

We know that, as far back as 2013, as we have heard from Fergus Ewing, some concerned Crown Office prosecutors believed that all Horizon cases should be “terminated”. Post Office lawyers came to Edinburgh on a mission to persuade the Crown and to placate its jitters. They were successful. Did the Crown just take what it was told at face value? Where was the curiosity? That moment seems to have been a massive missed opportunity for Scotland’s prosecution service and Post Office victims.

[Made a request to intervene.]

I am not sure whether I have time to take an intervention.

I can give you a bit of the time back.

Thank you.

On that point, Mr Kenneth Donnelly, a senior figure in the Crown Office, stated that the Crown Office was provisionally minded to terminate prosecutions when it got the information in 2013 about Helen Rose from Second Sight. However, it did not do so after Post Office lawyers said that that would—this comes from Mr Donnelly’s statement—

“raise a considerable public relations storm”.

Since when was that a proper consideration for the Crown Office?

I absolutely share Fergus Ewing’s incredulity at that statement.

After that 2013 meeting, at least four more people were prosecuted and convicted. It was not until two years later, in 2015, that the Crown decided that it would no longer prosecute Horizon cases due to mounting concerns. However, the Crown appears to have done nothing in relation to the convictions that it had already secured. It appears that, for five years, no victims were written to, no cases were re-examined and no convictions were overturned.

In 2019, Mr Bates and hundreds of others won their group action. Surely that should have jolted the Crown into taking responsibility for its past actions. I would have expected it to conduct a thorough audit of every Horizon case and to do whatever was needed to urgently contact every possible Scottish victim. The Crown’s legal duty to disclose all relevant evidence to an accused does not end at the point of conviction, but it was not until 2020 that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission wrote to 73 potential victims. It is staggering that we still do not know how many potential Horizon victims there are in Scotland. Of the 73 written to, only 19 came forward. Did it just stick a letter in the post and hope for the best? Did it write to dead people? The take-up seems to be remarkably low. Four years later, just six of those 19 people have had their convictions overturned.

The Lord Advocate, who sits around the Cabinet table, has twice attended the Parliament to answer questions. She was not in charge when all this was happening—that was Frank Mulholland, who is now a High Court judge, and the Parliament has not heard from him. A BBC journalist resorted to challenging him in the street, which resulted in a welcome apology but little more. The current Lord Advocate does not appear to support the blanket exoneration in her Government’s bill. In January, she told the Parliament:

“The process that we have in place is the right one.”

She said:

“It is imperative that due process be followed”.—[Official Report, 16 January 2024; c 27.]

Last week, I asked her whether she backed the bill, but she would not say, citing collective ministerial responsibility.

We welcome the bill, but I remain dismayed by the Scottish National Party’s tactics of using Horizon to pick a silly fight with UK ministers. It is evident that the most effective route to justice is through separate Scottish legislation, not least, as we have heard, in respect of specific Scottish offences. Every political party is committed to that. Speed of delivery and simplicity are vital. At some point, someone will put a financial cost on this shameful episode. However, the human cost will remain incalculable, so let us get this done.

15:33  

This is a very important week in the Post Office inquiry, with Paula Vennells giving evidence for three days from tomorrow. As others have said, this is the biggest miscarriage of justice in British legal history. I agree with Keith Brown that the result should be criminal proceedings, and I hope that there are such proceedings.

The cover-ups, the lies that were told and the dysfunctional nature of the Post Office’s internal investigation and prosecution functions led to many lives being ruined—not just the lives of sub-postmasters but their families’ lives—suicides, financial ruin and families leaving the country due to the talk of scandal in small villages.

It must never be allowed to happen again. Politicians, including Government ministers, should take note of the role of those who did not listen to sub-postmasters or did not question things when there was an obvious sniff about the reliability of Fujitsu’s Horizon computer system.

We owe Alan Bates a great deal for having the strength to take on an institution that did everything to intimidate, bully and make criminals of sub-postmasters. In 2019, the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance won a High Court case. Bugs, errors and defects were found in the Horizon system, which had caused discrepancies in postmasters’ branch accounts. However, despite that case winning compensation for victims, the question of compensation has still not been dealt with satisfactorily.

As far back as 2009, Computer Weekly wrote an article questioning the Horizon issues, so they have long been known about.

What we have heard during the public inquiry in the past few weeks has been quite shocking. Following news that sub-postmaster Martin Griffiths, who had suffered huge unexplained losses, was critically ill after attempting to take his own life, Post Office chief communications officer Mark Davies’s actions were to hire a specialist media lawyer, while he bragged about his political connections and how he might steer MPs away from looking closely at the Horizon issues. Thankfully, however, many MPs did not turn away.

Dr Alisdair Cameron, the chief finance officer, said that, when he joined the Post Office in 2015, there was an attempt to shut down the work of the forensic accountancy organisation Second Sight, which had been hired to independently review Horizon. There was unease that it was, in fact, doing its job. Second Sight was sacked after completing its damning report. Surely by then alarm bells must have been ringing up and down the United Kingdom. Second Sight revealed that the Post Office had prosecuted some postmasters for theft and false accounting without investigating claims that the Horizon system was to blame for the shortfalls.

Last week, Jarnail Singh, an in-house lawyer who had saved an attachment about discrepancies to his hard drive, claimed in his evidence not to know how to save a document. What we are hearing is incredible. That was the man who led the team to which Russell Findlay and Fergus Ewing referred, which came to Scotland after panic set in that the Crown Office in Scotland was about to recommend that all cases involving Horizon be terminated. By 2013, it was clear that the Post Office had a secret agenda to prevent that policy from happening. We can imagine the implications of Scottish authorities saying that they would terminate all cases, and the ripples that that would have caused in England and Wales. If that had happened, I believe that things would have been different. That is why I think that the Scottish Government was wrong to pursue legislation at Westminster. I believe that there would have been less scrutiny of the role of our Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. There must be accountability for such decisions, but we still do not have full accountability for them.

Another example that has been mentioned involved a Gorbals post office that was run by sisters Jacquie El Kasaby and Rose Stewart, where the accounts were beginning to show deficits to the tune of £34,000, which we know now do not exist. In 2014, the sisters handed over £10,000 of their own money to settle the case, as many others did in their own cases. That was despite the Second Sight report being available for all to see.

In 2014, prosecutor Angus Crawford became unconvinced by the Horizon evidence, which he thought was too weak to stand up in court. I believe that other cases were not proceeded with, and I would like those to be clarified.

As has been mentioned, following the meeting with Jarnail Singh and senior procurators fiscal, the guidelines for the Crown Office appeared to change from recommending that cases using Horizon for corroboration be terminated to one of assessing matters on a case-by-case basis. That was on the basis of a full report. I assert that if the Post Office had not lied to procurators fiscal and the Crown Office had stuck to its original recommendation, and—as I said at First Minister’s question time a few weeks ago—had been a little less naive, those four cases would not have proceeded.

It is the duty of all procurator fiscals to disclose, if they uncover the fact, that there have been unsafe convictions, and we still require an answer from the Lord Advocate as to why, from 2019 to this day, no victims were written to. It is not acceptable.

Pauline McNeill will remember the statement from the Lord Advocate last week. She said that there were 11 cases that procurators fiscal decided not to take forward. Should it not have been ringing alarm bells at the top of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service that so many individual fiscals were deciding not to pursue cases?

Exactly. If I may paraphrase, the dogs in the street knew that there was a sniff around Horizon, as did Computer Weekly in 2009, so why was that not enough at least to halt cases at that time?

I maintain that, if the Crown Office had stuck to its recommendation and its officials had even contacted Second Sight forensic accountants, they would at least have had a conversation, as I have done in my office, with Ron Warmington, the director of Second Sight, who said that Second Sight could have explained why it said in its report that there were bugs and defects and that 76 branches had unreliable accounts.

I have other questions about the four cases that were proceeded against using Horizon, where there was a plea of guilty.

Will the member take an intervention?

I will, in a minute.

As the Lord Advocate said in her letter to me, in those four cases there was a plea of guilty when they were obviously innocent—a plea of convenience, it would be called—and it is obvious that those victims pleaded guilty in order to get a way out of prosecution.

Does Pauline McNeill also agree that, as Kenneth Donnelly conceded in his evidence to the Wyn Williams inquiry, the obligation of disclosure is in perpetuity? It applies to previous convictions and, therefore, in 2013, both the Helen Rose and the Second Sight reports should have been copied to every person, and their lawyer, who had been convicted of Post Office Horizon cases before 2013. That, apparently, was not done either.

I agree that that is a central question that still needs to be answered by the Crown Office. Why was that so, when it was clear that the evidence that was used as corroboration might have been unsafe? That is where the duty of disclosure should have applied. We require answers to that.

However, in cases in which no actual money was missing in the first place, as a layperson, I ask the question: were bank accounts checked? Why was it only the Horizon system that was relied on, because, in most cases of fraud, it is a requirement to find where the money went?

Crucially, contractually, sub-postmasters were obliged to make good any losses. Given that knowledge, surely any prosecutor would ask the question—what is the motive of a sub-postmaster who is contractually obliged to make good any losses? That is the questionable bit when it comes to looking at whether the evidence was there.

I acknowledge and applaud the Scottish Crown Office, which has now stripped the Post Office of its status as a reporting body, but many other reporting bodies report to the Crown Office. It is vitally important that lessons are learned here, because it is not inconceivable that other reporting bodies are relying on poor evidence. We need to be sure about that.

Scottish Labour supports the Government in its emergency legislation to ensure that all victims are exonerated. We will never be able to put those lives back together, but, in our dealings, we can record this as a monumental miscarriage of justice with breathtaking levels of cover-up and cruelty beyond comprehension. We will stand up today and do what we think is right, and get those who should be answerable for this dreadful situation held to account.

I advise the chamber that the little time that we had in hand has now been exhausted, so interventions will need to be accommodated in members’ speaking allocations.

15:44  

On behalf of the Scottish Greens, I welcome the bill and recognise its urgency. It is clear that the convictions that we are discussing today are miscarriages of justice, and they must be quashed.

There is, as we have heard, a shared understanding across the Parliament, as there is across Scotland, of how very important the issue is. Therefore, I believe and hope that we can work together during the week to ensure that our legislation is as robust, inclusive and effective as it can possibly be.

I want to say just a little about the areas in which I consider that there is room to make the bill stronger. I am grateful to hear the cabinet secretary state her intention to remove the provision that a conviction must not have been previously addressed by the High Court in the context of appeal. As I said in my question to the Lord Advocate after her statement last week, new information on and understanding of how the scandal has been handled and dealt with is coming to light via various sources, not least the public inquiry, on an on-going basis. In the absence of that newer information, the earlier convictions cannot be considered safe. I have amendments planned along similar lines to those of the cabinet secretary on that.

I also want the provisions of the bill to apply to people who were not themselves working in a post office but were convicted along with the person who is covered by the bill. Additionally, if a close relative of someone who worked in a post office was convicted instead, perhaps to save their relative some distress, they should also be covered.

The amendments that we will discuss on Thursday will make the bill more robust, more inclusive and more effective, but the bill is neither the beginning nor the end of the story. It is not the beginning, because it builds on the years of arduous campaigning by Alan Bates and others, the years of speaking tenacious truth to perfidious power and the years of countering lies and persecution with courage and comradeship. It is not the end, because those who have survived the ordeal, and the families of those who have not, still have not received what is properly due to them.

As well as passing the legislation, it is our responsibility to scrutinise meticulously the UK Government’s schemes of redress. We must ensure, as far as we possibly can, that all those who suffered from this monstrous injustice receive full exoneration, satisfactory compensation and all that they need to resume their fractured lives. That is the absolute minimum, but that is still not the whole story.

This tragedy has causes as well as consequences. The wrong that was done by corporations and their senior personnel must be spoken, addressed and learned from. We live in a society where crimes of the powerful are almost invariably overlooked, erased or treated as anomalies. One bad apple, they say, but sometimes the barrel itself is rotten, with a culture of impunity, collusion, abuse and greed. When the time is right, we must be bold in seeking robust and appropriate penalties, including criminal charges that reflect the immense harm that has been done to individuals and their families most of all, but also to communities, to the reputation of once-respected institutions, to the rule of law and to trust itself. I will lodge a further amendment on that issue for our discussion on Thursday.

We must learn, at last, some wider lessons about those processes of privatisation and corporatisation that enhance personal rewards for those at the top while removing accountability to the society that they are supposed to serve. We must also learn lessons about outsourcing without transparency, about what is sacrificed to preserve reputation, and about the privileged acting with neither responsibility nor care.

It is chilling to reflect on the fact that the chief executive of the Post Office for much of this time was also a minister of the Church of England, preaching a gospel that is largely about the oppression of the poor by the rich, the conscientious by the hypocrites and the open-handed by the greedy. It seems that there is an acceptable disconnect between the personal lives of the powerful, which might be characterised by kindness and decency, and their professional roles, in which integrity is disregarded in a game of status and profit. However, this is not a game. It is fundamentally a question of justice for those who have been wrongly convicted in this situation. We need to address those who endured incarceration, humiliation, loss of livelihood, reputation, home and even life itself. It is not a game for them and it should not be for us.

Finally, I would like to reflect on the fact that the scandal might have stayed secret for years and robbed hundreds of others of their freedom and wellbeing had it not been for the work of those few brave, stubborn and dedicated individuals.

The bill is a tribute to all those who, when faced with injustice, did not give up and did not allow themselves to be fobbed off with reassurances, scared off by threats or bought off with less than that which justice demands. We salute and thank them.

Before I call the next speaker, I remind members that we are still listening to the opening speakers. Anybody who is participating in the debate will need to be present for both the opening and closing speeches.

15:50  

I, too, welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. On behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, I confirm that we will support the general principles of the bill today and, of course, we support the intentions of the bill.

The treatment of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses who were caught up in the Post Office Horizon scandal has been disgraceful. They were victims of a monumental cover-up, with the Post Office long having knowledge of the flaws in the Horizon IT system, gaslighting sub-postmasters and outright lying to ministers when concerns were raised.

I pay tribute to all the victims in the Post Office scandal for their search for truth and justice. It should not have taken the ITV drama “Mr Bates vs The Post Office” to capture the minds of viewers across the UK and bring to a head the form of redress that we see today with the Westminster legislation and this mirror bill.

We recognise the need for the bill to remain as close as possible to the similar Westminster legislation, as any deviation could cause delays. The mirrored legislation will ensure that those who are caught by the provisions of the bill are able to access the UK Government compensation scheme.

Some have argued that using legislation to overturn the convictions is not the ideal route for justice. However, many of those who will be covered by this narrow bill have already experienced the justice system and lost. I recognise the feeling that asking victims to once again battle in the courts is not the ideal way to address the scandal. Some of the cases go back 20 years, and the reality is that persuading those who are caught up in this to go back to court could be a big ask. However, if even one wrong conviction stayed in place, justice would not have been realised.

The UK-wide compensation scheme will require those seeking compensation to sign a legal statement declaring that they did not commit the crime for which they were wrongly convicted before they receive financial redress. Anyone found to have falsely signed could be found guilty of fraud. That should build in some deterrence against anyone looking to cash in on the miscarriage of justice that has been suffered by others. Indeed, as the Lord Bishop of Manchester said during the House of Lords’ second reading of the UK bill,

“the principle that it is better that a guilty person go free than an innocent one be convicted lies at the root of our British justice system.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 May 2024; Vol 838, c 436.]

Too often, we have seen those in charge cover up following systemic failures: the NHS with infected blood products, the Hillsborough disaster and the once highly respected Post Office. The way in which ordinary people are treated by authority figures in those situations does little to address the issues. Rather, the establishment is more concerned with covering up whatever has gone wrong, fearing any resulting negative public relations coverage, as Fergus Ewing has alluded to. It can take years for the relevant authorities to even acknowledge that there is a problem. In the case of the Post Office, it was Alan Bates and other affected persons who built networks and tirelessly campaigned to expose establishment cover-ups. Yet we still have dangerous cladding on buildings, reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete in schools and sewage in our waterways. There needs to be a cultural shift towards a more transparent and honest way of working, in which those in positions of authority take responsibility when things go wrong, own it and put it right at the first possible opportunity.

When the bill passes, those who have been wrongly convicted will finally have their names cleared. As we saw from the ITV drama, that will have significant impacts on many lives in which a past conviction is a barrier—for example, in situations such as helping out in a school. The bill will not give back the lives of those who tragically took their lives from the stress of the struggle, nor will it reverse the mental ill health that some still endure. It will not give back time spent in prison, nor will it give back birthdays missed, children growing up or homes sold.

We must pass this bill under the accelerated emergency mechanism to bring about swifter justice, we must realise compensation for those who have been caught up in the scandal and we must learn from this.

We move to the open debate.

15:55  

The use of tainted evidence that was provided by the Post Office in criminal cases right across the United Kingdom is one of the biggest miscarriages of justice to have occurred in recent history. Some sub-postmasters were suspended or dismissed; others were prosecuted for offences of dishonesty, with a number being convicted and, in some cases, imprisoned.

That miscarriage of justice has had profound impacts on the people who have been affected by it. They experienced bankruptcy and the loss of family homes. Individuals were hounded as thieves in the communities that they lived in and provided a trusted service to. There were breakdowns in relationships with partners, children and friends and the mental and physical health problems that result from the devastating toll of such a distressing and unjust situation. Several died by suicide.

Estimates from across the UK suggest that almost 1,000 individuals were convicted on the basis of evidence from the Horizon system over a 20-year period. In Scotland, those prosecutions were brought by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. In 2020, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which investigates possible miscarriages of justice in Scotland, wrote to 73 potential victims of the Horizon scandal.

In line with the approach that is being taken by the UK Government, the Scottish Government believes that anyone who was wrongly convicted as a result of the impact of the defective Horizon IT system should have their conviction quashed and should, as a result, be entitled to UK Government compensation.

A number of the cases affected by the Horizon IT failings are more than 20 years old. Some victims have passed away, while many others are in declining health or have lost faith in the justice system and, understandably, do not wish to engage further with it. The current system relies on sub-postmasters choosing to lodge an appeal, which many will not want to do, for obvious reasons. It also relies on there being evidence that the conviction is unsafe when, in many cases, that evidence no longer exists. Continuing with the current system would not achieve the objective of ensuring that all wrongful convictions are quashed.

The effect of the bill is both symbolic and practical. By quashing the convictions of sub-postmasters, it removes the stain from those who were wrongly convicted. However, it also has a practical effect. Under the overturned convictions scheme that has been established by the UK Government, anyone who was wrongfully convicted as a result of Horizon evidence is eligible to receive compensation, but only after their conviction has been overturned, which means that the many sub-postmasters and others who were wrongfully convicted but who have not appealed through the courts are unable to access the compensation that they deserve. The UK bill will remove that barrier to access for those who ought to be entitled to financial redress through the UK Government’s compensation schemes and the bill before us today seeks to do likewise for Scottish sub-postmasters.

Given the unique circumstances arising from the endemic failings of the Horizon IT system, it is absolutely right for our Scottish Parliament to take unprecedented action in the form of primary legislation to quash the relevant convictions, rather than relying on the existing justice system to cure the miscarriages of justice that arose.

That said, the quickest and easiest route to overturn those miscarriages of justice would undoubtedly have been for the UK Government to extend its Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill to cover sub-postmasters in Scotland. I think that many Scottish citizens will find it strange that the UK Government excluded them and I remain unclear as to why the Scottish Government’s repeated requests for the inclusion of Scottish victims were refused.

However, the requests were refused, so the Scottish Government bill before us mirrors the UK legislation to ensure parity between affected sub-postmasters in Scotland and those elsewhere in the UK and, crucially, to ensure access to the UK Government’s compensation scheme.

I am heart sorry that justice has taken so long and that it is coming far too late for some, but I will be glad to vote to progress this bill and to move us towards delivering action to ensure that sub-postmasters in Scotland who were affected by wrongful convictions can receive justice by having their convictions quashed and can have access to the compensation that they so gravely deserve.

16:00  

The Scottish Conservatives welcome the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences (Scotland) Bill, which deals with a striking and appalling miscarriage of justice. There is a striking parallel with our item of business earlier this afternoon on the contaminated blood scandal, which is yet another horrendous matter of injustice.

This week, we will devote two afternoons of parliamentary business to the Post Office Horizon situation, in which, as we have heard from a number of speakers, hundreds of innocent sub-postmasters across the United Kingdom were unfairly accused of theft and fraud. The personal impact of that was horrendous. Hundreds lost their livelihoods, with some having to repay tens of thousands of pounds. Others were prosecuted. Some went to prison. Some took their own lives. For all those who were affected, the personal, financial and emotional impacts were enormous. Russell Findlay reminded us of some of the personal stories of those who were impacted. As we now know, those victims were all innocent. There were serious issues with the Horizon software. Horrifically, we now know that, at the top of the Post Office, the problems with Horizon were well understood, yet nothing was done to stop the prosecutions.

Now, at last, the UK Government has accepted that all those who were convicted require to be exonerated, and emergency legislation has been introduced at Westminster to address that. In parallel, substantial compensation will be paid out to those who have suffered. It is the least that they should expect.

I am glad that the Scottish Government has introduced its bill and I hope that the Parliament and all parties will work together to see it passed as expeditiously as possible. That said, it is disappointing that we have seen people in the SNP trying to exploit the Horizon scandal for political purposes, proving that no situation is so tragic that it cannot be turned into a constitutional football. In an interview on 23 April, the then First Minister, Humza Yousaf, said that he was “utterly furious” about the fact that the UK Government had chosen not to extend its legislation to Scotland. He said that it was “outrageous and unacceptable”. However, justice is devolved to this Parliament, and the decisions that were made to take prosecutions in Scotland were not a matter for the Post Office but entirely a matter for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. Had the UK Government tried to introduce a bill to deal with Scottish justice matters, we can only imagine that the very first people to complain would have been SNP ministers. However, they try to turn the current situation into a constitutional grievance.

Mr Fraser is absolutely correct to say that justice is devolved, but that does not prevent me from bringing to this Parliament with great regularity legislative consent motions that are based on UK-wide legislation. I reassure him that I am one of the most pragmatic politicians that he will meet. I am not much of an ideologue. My concern was simply one of pragmatism and to look for the quickest solution.

The legislative consent motions that the cabinet secretary refers to do not normally deal with matters of the criminal justice system in Scotland. However, I welcome the moderate tone that we have heard from the cabinet secretary, which is in stark contrast with what we heard from the former First Minister when he spoke on the issue just a few weeks ago.

The stance that the Scottish ministers have taken seems to have put them at odds with the stance that was taken by the Lord Advocate, who indicated to this Parliament back in January that she would not support blanket exoneration of those who were convicted on Horizon evidence. She was quite clear at that point that she did not believe that every conviction represented a miscarriage of justice. She referenced the fact that individuals had pled guilty in cases, not recognising—as we have heard in this debate from Pauline McNeill and others—that people who knew perfectly well that they were innocent were often advised by their solicitors to plead guilty to the charges because they were told that Horizon evidence could not be challenged so they had no alternative.

Questions remain about the conduct of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service—which, surely, had a duty to weigh the credibility of the Post Office evidence on Horizon before taking prosecutions. As Fergus Ewing reminded us, concerns were raised with the Crown Office in 2013 about the integrity of the Horizon system, but it was a further two years before a decision was taken to discontinue prosecutions that relied on that evidence. Four cases that were prosecuted after the 2013 meeting resulted in a conviction.

Pauline McNeill quoted a case in which a procurator fiscal was not convinced by the credibility of the Horizon evidence. I spoke at a lawyers conference three weeks ago. I met a retired procurator fiscal—a different individual—who told me that he personally had decided not to take forward a Horizon case because he was dissatisfied. Given what the Lord Advocate told Parliament last week, we now know that 11 cases have been identified in which individual prosecutors decided to suspend the consideration of proceedings and take no action as a direct result of their concerns over the accuracy of the Horizon system. Why did that not ring alarm bells at the top of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service? Why was a decision not taken at that point to cease all prosecution proceedings? I asked that precise question of the Lord Advocate when she gave evidence last Thursday, and I did not get a convincing answer.

It is good that the legislation is proceeding and that compensation is being paid to those who have been treated so unjustly, but that does not answer the very serious questions that remain about decisions that have been taken by the prosecution service in Scotland. We need answers to those questions.

16:06  

I am pleased that, at long last, we are legislating to overturn the convictions of those who were wrongly convicted in the Post Office Horizon scandal.

Many months ago, as we have heard, I was contacted by Rab Thomson, a constituent of mine and a former sub-postmaster of Cambus post office. He was one of around 100 Scots who were wrongly convicted because of the scandal. Even a year ago, when the faults with the Horizon system were widely known, Rab was struggling to get his conviction overturned.

On the issue that has now been raised—of the politicisation of where responsibility lies—it should be said that the whole scenario started in Westminster. Concerns were first raised about the system in 1997 with the Government that was new at that point. The issue centres on a body for which the responsibility is reserved entirely to the UK Government. Perhaps members should remember that, because some people seem to want to elide that point.

From the point at which I met Rab, my constituency team and I did what we could to support him—through writing countless letters to relevant organisations, being vocal in the press, and raising parliamentary questions on the issue. Indeed, I met Rab not long before his hearing, and I am very pleased to report that, in January this year, he was among the first wrongly convicted postmasters in Scotland to get his conviction overturned.

As I have said, the postmasters have known about this scandal for decades. The public have known about the scandal for years. I think that Pauline McNeill used the phrase that the dogs in the street knew about the scandal. We therefore have to ask ourselves how it went on for so long.

We now know that a number of people in positions of power knew about it. Had they done things differently, we would not be in this situation. As the Lord Advocate said—and I do not want to attack the Lord Advocate—

Will Keith Brown give way?

I am sorry, but I do not have much time. We have been told that we will not get time back for interventions. I apologise to Michael Marra for that.

I have a direct quote from the Lord Advocate to the Parliament:

“The Post Office, its lawyers and ... UK Government ministers continued to support the Horizon system during ... 2013 to 2015”—

by which time we knew of the issues with the Horizon software. Throughout the scandal, there were

“worrying levels of deliberate and sustained concealment and deception”. —[Official Report, 16 May 2024; c 67.]

It would be good to hear a statement of a general principle that any deception should be the subject of a criminal investigation and, if necessary, criminal action. That should involve not only those with whom we disagree.

My point today is the same as the point that I made last week: given those levels of deliberate concealment and deception, what will it take for the people who are responsible for the scandal in the first place, both in the UK Government and in the Post Office, to face the consequences of their actions? The Post Office is answerable to UK ministers, who are responsible for not taking action when the faults in the Horizon system were first identified. As far as sub-postmasters in Scotland are concerned, the UK Government has been posted missing in all this.

I believe that this is the UK Government’s problem to fix. It would be a rare occasion for me to stand here and ask why the UK legislature is not legislating on Scottish affairs but, on this occasion, given the necessity of speed and, as we heard from Beatrice Wishart, the necessity to mirror the UK bill as closely as possible, why do we not ensure that there is parity of treatment for everyone across the UK who is affected? Why does the UK Government not include Scotland? Why does it include Northern Ireland, which has a different legal system, but not Scotland? That is a pertinent question.

I agree with Pauline McNeill that we should ensure that the Crown Office and others are held accountable. I am perfectly willing to accept that, but it should not be something that delays justice for the victims.

We know that the UK Government has broken the Sewel convention 11 times since 2018, ignoring or overriding the wishes of this Parliament. To me, that begs the question: if Scotland had acted first, would the UK Government have shut that down and told us to wait for the UK-wide legislation, as it has done in a number of other areas? One of those was our deposit return scheme, which was shut down in order for a UK-wide scheme to take place—although that is yet to materialise, unsurprisingly. I for one cannot make sense of the UK Government’s decision making in all this.

I am glad that we are taking action to overturn the wrongful convictions. I could be wrong, and I am willing to be corrected, but I am sure that the Lord Advocate did not say, as has been alleged, that she does not support the idea of generalised pardons, or whatever the relevant terminology is. I am sure that she said that she could not do that within her powers, and that she was not willing to comment on the collective responsibility position of the Scottish Government. She said that she could not do it, not that she would not do it.

What will it take for the UK Government and the Post Office to be held to account here? Why did the UK Government, which is so keen to interfere in Scottish affairs, not include Scotland in the system? I cannot help but conclude that it is because the UK Government would rather play politics—as we are seeing from Murdo Fraser today—with the lives of people whom it has already let down severely, in a cynical attempt to show this Parliament up and avert the blame from itself. The disgraceful way in which the Lord Advocate has been talked about shows a generalised attempt to discredit institutions in Scotland as part of a wider Tory platform. It is a disgrace. In light of the UK Government’s failure to act on behalf of the Scottish victims of this appalling scandal, I support the principles of the proportionate legislation that is now being proposed.

We should bear it in mind that the victims are not unaware of where responsibility lies, of who is trying to get out from underneath it and of who is not willing to take the action that is necessary. There is no logical conclusion other than that the UK Government is playing politics with its actions. I am very pleased that the Scottish Government will take action. It is long overdue. People such as my constituent Rab Thomson have had their convictions overturned already, so I assume from what has been said in the debate that he will now be eligible for the compensation. It would be good to see that formalised for the other victims.

I do not know much about Maggie Chapman’s proposed amendments, but they sound sensible to me, and I hope that they will be given serious consideration by the cabinet secretary and the Government. Let us see whether we can get the bill done as quickly as possible, given the UK Government’s failure to act on behalf of the victims of the scandal.

16:12  

The bill and the nature and tone of the Lord Advocate’s statements to the Parliament raise serious issues for the justice system in Scotland. As Murdo Fraser said earlier, we heard a statement on the infected blood inquiry earlier today, and we heard representations about the culture in public bodies. The Law Society of Scotland says in its briefing to MSPs for this debate that it should be for the courts, not Parliament, to quash convictions. Indeed, that may normally be the case. It is extremely unfortunate that the Scottish courts and the Scottish justice system have failed to quash convictions on a case-by-case basis before now.

We need to identify what has gone wrong, because it is clear that there were concerns within the Crown Office in 2013 that the Horizon evidence was not safe. There have been a number of references in the debate already to the 2013 meeting and, indeed, to the Alan Bates legal cases thereafter. Although it is a pleasure to be able to speak in this important debate and to support steps to ensure that those who were convicted in the Horizon scandal have their wrongful convictions overturned now—and, indeed, compensation paid to them as soon as possible—it is the role of the Parliament to grapple seriously with the question why there have been such delays in that happening.

I appreciate that the bill is deliberately drafted to mirror the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill—the Westminster legislation. This Parliament needs to ensure that all those who were wrongly prosecuted and wrongly convicted receive justice, but we also need to consider what went wrong here.

Around 100 people are believed to have been wrongly convicted in Scotland. It is hugely concerning that, like in the rest of the UK, prosecutions in Scotland proceeded when there was so much concern that there were problems with the system.

I will talk about my personal experience, because I was an MP at Westminster prior to 2015. Although, to my knowledge, I had no constituent in North Ayrshire and Arran who was directly affected by the issue, I attended a number of meetings at the House of Commons in the years prior to 2015 organised by sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses. They were attended by people from across the UK who had been falsely accused, and they explained what had happened to them. They were large meetings attended by MPs from all political parties and campaigners from across the UK. There was consensus among MPs from across the political spectrum, and there were robust representations about the concerns that had been raised.

Many lives were destroyed because those voices were not listened to. We need to understand as a Parliament why it required a television programme for the justice system to respond. At the time that I was learning about the issue, in the years up to 2015, it simply did not seem credible that those prosecutions were safe. Many professionals who were involved in the cases raised concerns based on what they saw, but the fact that many law-abiding citizens were being accused, prosecuted and convicted due to problems with the computer system was not recognised by the justice system, and that is what we need to focus on.

I took part in a debate in the House of Commons on the issue in 2014, and I was on the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, which took evidence in the early part of 2015. It was clear in the debates that were taking place in 2013 that MPs from across the political spectrum were concerned. In my speech in the House of Commons, I made specific reference to my role as the chair of the Communication Workers Union’s parliamentary group and to the discussions that I had been having with its sub-postmasters branch in that capacity.

It was very clear, and it was made clear in the debates, that it was not just the people who were being prosecuted who were raising concerns. Concerns were being raised by people working in post offices across the UK. It was said very clearly that the experience of people directly affected was that, when a problem was occurring in relation to Post Office financial systems, the initial response from the Post Office was to blame the postmaster or postmistress, rather than conduct a serious inquiry to see whether there had been a fault in the system and find out what had gone wrong. We know that the consequences of that were devastating for individuals whether they proceeded through the criminal courts or not. We have many examples of years of anguish experienced by individuals as a result.

We need to pass the bill and make sure that everybody who was affected and who was taken through the criminal courts is included. That may require some amendments that might not mirror what has happened at Westminster. I hope that the Scottish Government will look favourably on that, because we need to make sure that those convictions are quashed.

There are broader issues here, not just for those who were prosecuted but for those who were accused but never prosecuted. There are also broader issues in relation to what we do when serious concerns in public institutions are raised and how the state responds.

16:14  

This is what Kenneth Donnelly, deputy Crown Agent at the Crown Office, told the Wyn Williams inquiry about the appeals to the court of criminal appeal that were raised in Scotland:

“Following the conclusion of the first tranche of appeals it is anticipated that a streamlined and expedient process of review, appeal and disposal will be available for application to any future cases. It is anticipated that the rate of review and appeal will thereafter increase exponentially. It is not possible at this stage to provide a timescale for this process to be completed.”

That statement was delivered last November. What has happened to that review? Where is it? Why, in any event, was it not brought forward in 2015 at the very latest, and perhaps even earlier?

I have been a solicitor and a member of the Law Society of Scotland for 43 years, so I have great respect for it. I agree in principle that we should not transgress the separation of powers. It is for the courts to administer justice, and it is for us to pass the laws and steer clear of being involved indirectly in cases. However, I am afraid that, in this case, our legal system has completely let us down. There is no escaping that conclusion.

We have to pass the bill, and we have to get it right. There are lots of problems with it, not the least of which is something that has not been mentioned. Just yesterday, I noticed something when I was reading paragraph 35 of the financial memorandum. Up until now, I had thought that there were about 80 or 100 cases. Every time that the Lord Advocate has opined about the number of cases, she has mentioned around 80 or 100. However, paragraph 35 of the financial memorandum refers to

“the low estimate of cases to be reviewed (1,000) or the high estimate of cases to be reviewed (2,000).”

I say to the cabinet secretary that we have some work to do to find out what exactly the explanation is for that enormous discrepancy. There might be a simple answer, but here we are at stage 1, and we have no inkling of the answer.

I clarify that the explanatory notes and the financial memorandum say that the best estimate of cases to be quashed is 200. The figure could be lower or higher, but to ensure that we capture everyone who has suffered a miscarriage of justice we will need to look at between 1,000 and 2,000 cases if we are going to be satisfied that justice is going to be served.

I absolutely agree with that. However, the question that I am asking is: why are we finding out about the possibly much higher figure only now? We did not hear about it in January, and we did not hear about it last week from the Lord Advocate.

The victims have been betrayed not just once and not just twice, but at least thrice. They have been betrayed first by being wrongly convicted; secondly, by the cover-up and the venal, deceitful, illegal, bullying, Stasi-like behaviour of those acting on behalf of the Post Office; and thirdly, by the failure of the Scottish system, which, like other solicitors here, I am proud to have been part of for all my adult life and have always thought of as a truly effective independent prosecutorial system.

The Crown Office did not come clean voluntarily. As it admits, it was forced to admit its position because of a freedom of information request from the BBC and by having to give evidence to the Wyn Williams inquiry. If it had not been for those things, we may have been none the wiser. That might have been completely covered up.

The Crown Office was told in two meetings in 2013 that the Horizon system was apparently flawed. Its first reaction was to say, “Let’s terminate the prosecutions.” I think that that must have been the right decision, but it was persuaded—we do not quite know why—to do otherwise. At the end of the second meeting, in September, the Crown Office was promised that the solicitor to the Post Office, Cartwright King, would carry out “a full examination” of all Horizon cases. If that was said in September, was there not somebody in the Crown Office shrewd enough to say, “Hang on. If everything is fine with Horizon, why do we need a full examination? Surely that is inconsistent with a bland assurance that all is well and that there are no dodgy cases.” Moreover, as Pauline McNeill asked, why did it not pick up the phone to Second Sight or Helen Rose? Did it? We do not really know. Did it make any inquiries whatsoever as our independent investigator in a system that, up until now, I was fairly proud of?

It is not exactly a huge shock to many of us that computers do not always work very well. My goodness me: I was the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Tourism, and I spent two years of my life involved in the minutiae of trying to fix a dud computer system. In any event, which computer system is so intelligent that it can detect when it is being operated north of Hadrian’s wall? That is a thing, is it not? Did any of the people in the Crown Office ask any questions about that? Moreover, as so many sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses were being charged, did somebody in the Crown Office not say, “Hang on. These must be among the most law-abiding people in the country? How come there is a sudden flood of crooks who are running sub-post offices?”

The whole thing just looks, to me, utterly incredible. The first duty that we have is to the victims—we need to get them compensation. I support the cabinet secretary on that.

However, we must know what happened. The Crown Office must come clean. It has, voluntarily, to give us a full, thorough and credible account of what happened. Until it does so, the matter will not go away, and that would do the reputation of the Crown Office no good whatsoever.

16:25  

It is telling that the content of chamber business today is consumed by two great national scandals: the infected blood scandal and the Post Office scandal. We do not know for certain how many people have been impacted by the latter, but, as with the former, people have had their lives absolutely ruined by institutions that demand trust and respect while forfeiting the trust of the very individuals who relied on them or made them successful in the first place.

Ultimately, innocent people were wrongly accused of malpractice and crime, thrust into debt and financial devastation and lost their lives, all in the name of protecting a great institution and, more importantly, the people who were in charge of it at the time. That is about as bad as it gets.

Those innocent people included Keith Macaldowie, a sub-postmaster from Greenock, who—as we heard—was falsely accused of theft to the tune of £15,000. He was desperately taking loans from his family and from anywhere that he could get money, just to balance the books in the Horizon hellhole in which he found himself. He lost his marriage, his friends and his money, and he was ostracised by the very community that he had served diligently. He was faced with the choice to resign or be prosecuted. Well—which would you choose?

In his evidence to the UK Horizon inquiry—the evidence is what has made the scandal so real to me—Keith said:

“The impact of the Post Office has affected my life in every aspect ... I have been treated as the guilty party.”

He also said:

“I came close to suicide. At one point I had a noose around my neck.”

Can you imagine what that feels like? This debate, therefore, is for them—it is not about the politics of others.

After months of ambiguity, the bill goes about as far as it can in terms of mass exoneration. It is not a perfect solution, nor will it serve any justice to Keith or so many others like him. Seeing Governments and Parliaments legislate to quash decisions that were made by the courts should make us, as legislators, uncomfortable, but it should make the Crown uncomfortable, too. Yes, there might be exceptional circumstances, and yes, the bill is not perfect—for example, it will not quash convictions that have already been appealed before the High Court and refused. The Lord Advocate confirmed that that may not affect too many people, but—as we have heard—it may do.

The UK Government faces a similar conundrum, as its bill will not quash convictions where appeals have been rejected by the Court of Appeal. Nevertheless, the UK Government has instead insisted that it will consider those cases, case by case. I hope that the same will be true in Scotland, because no victim of this scandal can be left behind. Parity between Scottish sub-postmasters and anybody else in the UK who is affected by the scandal is necessary on a moral level, if nothing else, even if bringing that about presents technical difficulties.

The cabinet secretary’s letter to the Criminal Justice Committee today referred to the timescales for stage 3. My view is that we should legislate fully this side of the summer recess. If any future UK bill presents or necessitates a change, we can mop that up over the recess. It should not be the other way round, because we need to be seen to be proactive. The Crown, right here in Scotland, took decisions to prosecute Scottish postmasters. It is that difference of law and of process that makes the whole situation in Scotland more disgraceful.

Arguably, our legal system could, and should, have offered a safety net, in a way that the prosecution of the Post Office cases elsewhere did not. Our prized and unique approach to prosecuting and to corroboration should have led to that outcome, but it did not, because the Crown trusted the Post Office, seemingly beyond doubt. Did it do so naively or conveniently? Perhaps we will never know, but we should.

When I asked her why that was the case last week, the Lord Advocate’s pre-scripted response disappointed not just me but the victims. She implied that it is not the job of the Crown Office to challenge evidence. Perhaps not, but in the absence of a robust police investigation and of well-paid defence lawyers on the side of the postmasters, was it not more necessary than ever for the Crown Office to be utterly confident in its decision to prosecute cases? I would say that the Lord Advocate has endured two very uncomfortable appearances in the chamber already this year that have perhaps been unenlightening.

Yes, the Post Office has lost its status as a specialist reporting agency—rightly so—but there remain far too many unanswered questions as to why the Crown Office accepted Post Office evidence at face value without query and without questions. Even when suspicions arose—we have heard documentation of that today—those prosecutions proceeded. Why?

Referring crime to the police instead is not watertight. Anyone who saw the BBC “Disclosure” documentary will have seen the horrendous case of the late Caren Lorimer, who, when interviewed by the police, was told by them of important people

“who’ve worked for the post office for years”

and

“know that Horizon system upside doon, back to front and inside out”.

The police told her:

“It's completely and utterly fool proof and they’ve done all their checks and this money is not there.”

That sounds like the plot of a TV drama, but that was real life.

Legislation will never restore the trust that has been lost in our justice system, the trust that has been lost in the Post Office and even the trust that has been lost in politicians’ ability to hold all of them to account.

The blood scandal inquiry has called for compensation for those who have been “infected and affected” by that horrendous scandal. All the victims—convicted or not—of the Horizon scandal deserve more than warm words and 11-page pieces of legislation. Every one of them deserves compensation. Anything less than that would be morally repugnant.

16:31  

I, too, welcome consideration of the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences (Scotland) Bill at stage 1 today. The bill, like the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill that is going through the UK Parliament to legislate on convictions in England and Wales, takes the unprecedented and wholly exceptional step of providing a blanket exoneration for all those affected.

We all have memories of that familiar feature in our high streets across Scotland—the Post Office. It sold stamps, paid out pensions and benefits, and posted our parcels and Christmas cards. It makes it all the more hard to believe—and, frankly, all the more sinister—that the installation of Horizon, the software upgrade to the Post Office accounting system, which aimed to reduce fraud in local post office branches, became the focus of one of the most significant frauds in our legal history.

I extend my support to every individual who suffered the trauma, indignity and humiliation of being prosecuted and convicted of a crime that they did not commit, victimised by a horrific injustice unleashed on people who had done nothing wrong that robbed sub-postmasters and their families of their livelihood, their wellbeing, their good names and their right to having a good life—all at the hands of a greedy, reckless corporation.

We know that many people who suffered those injustices have not come forward, and I understand the conflict that many feel at the prospect of reopening and reliving a traumatic and difficult set of memories. Not everyone who was wrongly accused by the Horizon system is still with us, and I welcome the proposals in the bill for those individuals to have the wrong that they suffered addressed.

Many of us will have heard constituents, friends or even family members speak movingly about the devastating impact that the Horizon system had on them. In my case, a colleague whose father was a sub-postmaster recently reflected:

“I remember as a boy, every week, my father would say to my mum, ‘I can’t understand it, the takings are short again.’ For years, my dad would check and double check, and if the till was short, he would top it up from his own pocket.”

It would not be a stretch to anticipate that my colleague’s father paid many thousands of pounds back to the Post Office, assuming that the fault was his, never questioning the integrity of Horizon.

I commend the work of the Criminal Cases Review Commission in considering Post Office Horizon convictions. To date, it has referred about 76 such convictions to the appeal courts, which has resulted in 63 convictions being overturned. I took those figures from the CCRC website today.

Does Audrey Nicoll share my curiosity about how the Crown Office and the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission arrived at the number of 73 convictions, given the suggestion that there could have been up to 2,000?

I cannot answer that, but I thank Mr Findlay for raising the issue. I hope that the bill will address that.

I have spent most of my working life immersed in the criminal justice system, reporting many serious and complex criminal cases and giving evidence in sheriff courts and the High Court. I commend the commitment and professionalism of those working across the criminal justice system, including in our courts, to seek justice for those who have been wronged by crime and to hold those responsible to account.

I am not insensitive to the concerns that members have raised about prosecutions in Scotland, but today’s debate revolves around a bill that seeks to bring redress to those whose lives have been devastated, and to do so timeously.

Given the failings of the Horizon IT system that lie at the heart of this matter, I am fully supportive of the exceptional steps that are being taken through the bill to exonerate Post Office sub-postmasters who were convicted using information that infected the process of justice, with individuals pleading guilty to, or being found guilty of, offences that they did not commit.

However, it is disappointing that, despite representation from the Scottish Government, the UK Government has chosen not to extend its bill to Scotland. Frankly, if I were a Horizon victim, I am not sure what message I would take from that.

From the numerous media reports highlighting specific injustices, it has become clear that a broad range of provisions require to be included in the bill in order to capture the breadth of individual circumstances that have been faced by individual sub-postmasters. I also welcome the bill’s provisions that seek to expunge any record of wrongdoing for those who have been affected. A range of crimes of dishonesty have been prosecuted and, consequently, the bill addresses the range of penalties that have been imposed.

I realise that, given the time that has elapsed for some people who have been impacted by these events, the removal of a wrongful conviction might be of limited practical effect, as issues such as previous convictions might not be eligible to be tendered in a court after all this time. However, it is important that we right the wrongs that the Horizon IT system created in so far as that is possible. Importantly, the bill sets out to, when possible, undo the many additional wrongs that have flowed from the miscarriages of justice. That will include the repayment of fines and addressing the impact of pension entitlements for those who were wrongly imprisoned.

We do not have the power to turn back time or remove the hurt and anger of those who were wrongly accused. However, we do have the power and the responsibility to stand up for those who have been wronged, to publicly declare that there was no wrongdoing and, as far as is possible, to help them to find the place where they would have been in their lives but for this injustice.

16:38  

It is not often that an issue unifies most members of the chamber and the public in agreement on an outcome, but everyone is united in wanting justice for people who have had their lives and livelihoods ruined by one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in modern history.

In many respects, we must be realistic. The damage has been done, and sub-postmasters and their families have been put through hell. There has been a systemic abdication of responsibility by those involved. Although we can do what we can to provide redress through the bill and quash convictions that were not sound, we will never be able to fully compensate for what has happened to sub-postmasters across the country.

I am heartened that the Scottish Parliament is taking the unprecedented step of considering this emergency bill. It speaks to the severity of the issue that such a step is deemed necessary. Many people will have waited for years, if not decades, to get to this point. Tragically, some of them will not see the wrongs being righted. As the sole shareholder in Post Office Ltd, consecutive UK Governments allowed the Horizon scandal to happen unabated. The Post Office was complicit in attempts to conceal the issues from the public. Fujitsu, which I believe has remained conspicuously absent from discussions, must do more to account for its responsibility. Innocent people were caught in the crossfire of institutional systemic failure. There is consensus on redressing those historic wrongs.

I pay tribute to my Motherwell and Wishaw colleague at Westminster, Marion Fellows, for her resolute advocacy for sub-postmasters over many years, both in the all-party parliamentary group on post offices and with many colleagues across the political spectrum.

I also pay tribute to the journalists at Computer Weekly. As a former computing professional, I am probably one of the few people in the chamber who has a subscription to that publication, but we all know how important its research work and its response to Mr Bates’s complaints were in bringing the matter to the fore.

Our tributes must also go to the campaigners who fought tirelessly against one of the UK’s oldest and most recognisable institutions, with the odds stacked against them. They took on the system and they have beaten it. We legislators now know the truth because of their efforts, and we have a moral duty to act now. Many will question why it took a TV drama to shift the dial on the issue. That should not be the focus of our discourse today, but it raises questions for us all about how much attention we paid to the warnings that were there previously.

Our collective focus should now be on expediting the bill so that equity can finally be secured for Scottish sub-postmasters. I am disappointed that the opportunity to include them in the bill at Westminster was not taken up by the UK Government. My colleague Marion Fellows moved an amendment to that bill that would have put that in place.

Does the member accept the need for Scottish legislation as laid out by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, not least because of the specific Scottish criminal offences that are involved?

The same argument could be made for Northern Ireland cases. After the bill was passed, the UK Government came back and included Northern Ireland cases, so why could it not have included cases in Scotland? That leaves a question among Scottish sub-postmasters and a doubt among those who are affected.

That is important, because there is one group of people whom we are not talking about today, in the context of the bill, but who nevertheless have been affected by the legislation. They are the sub-postmasters who signed non-disclosure agreements, gave up their businesses in response to the same bullying tactics of the Post Office and gave up the contractual payments that they would have received at the end of their terms as sub-postmasters, all to make the problems go away. Some of them have paid tens of thousands of pounds to make good their balances with the Post Office. Their lives have been affected in the same way, but, because of the non-criminal prosecution, they remain sceptical about coming forward at this stage to have their own cases brought into the public eye and exposed at this time. They are very fearful.

A blanket ban across the UK would have done some good in ensuring that those people’s NDAs would not be acted upon. Sir Wyn Williams did give an assurance during the inquiry that that would be the case, but Scottish sub-postmasters are asking whether that assurance applies in Scotland, because we have a different legal system. If the cabinet secretary can say anything to bring clarity to the situation, I would be grateful to hear it.

People must have the confidence to come forward. We should do everything that we can to make it as easy as possible for those who have been convicted and bullied or who have given up their businesses in the face of similar evidence and tactics from the Post Office to seek redress. I hope that the conversations that we have once we have passed the bill will encourage more people to come forward and obtain the redress that they deserve.

16:44  

The Horizon scandal is a great miscarriage of justice. Reputations were ruined, livelihoods were laid waste, dignity was destroyed and lives were lost. Many went to their graves knowing that they had been wronged, without hope of clearing their name. Although the legislation will not undo the pain, shame and suffering that has been caused, it is right that we legislate to deliver justice, however belatedly, and that wrongly convicted sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses be exonerated.

The bill is relatively straightforward, and, to a very large extent, it exactly mirrors the UK legislation. I find the posturing of recent weeks and, frankly, some of this afternoon to be genuinely inexplicable. The bill in front of us is proof that the impossibilist claims of the SNP Government were without foundation.

The situation in Scotland is distinct, and the cabinet secretary knows that. In the case of the Horizon scandal, it was the Crown Office that prosecuted in Scotland, as opposed to the Post Office in England and Wales. The circumstances are materially different. It is right that we legislate here, with diligence and speed.

I am sorry that the member has taken what has been said as “posturing”. I draw his attention to the evidence from James Chalmers, regius professor of law at the University of Glasgow, to the Westminster Justice Select Committee on 16 April, at the time of the delay. He said that

“requiring the Scottish Government to wait to see how the legislation passes through Parliament and how it is amended so as to try and mirror it later on, seems to help no one.”

That was not necessary.

The bill in front of us proves that we can do it here and, frankly, we should do it here, on the basis that the institutions are different. Also, it is right that we, as parliamentarians, have the opportunity to hold those institutions to account by asking specific questions about the conduct that took place—including members of the member’s own party, who are raising very specific issues. Without the legislation that is in front of us now we would not have that opportunity. That is an ancillary benefit but, I believe, a very important one.

The Horizon scandal has struck a profound chord with many across our nation. First, that is because it is about as clear a demonstration of injustice as one can possibly find: people were accused of a crime that they did not commit and devastatingly punished for it. Secondly, it is because it confirms a fear that many ordinary people have that great institutions will always protect themselves, not the people whom they are meant to serve. Those fears are well founded.

The Bishop of Liverpool’s 2017 report into the Hillsborough disaster was titled “The patronising disposition of unaccountable power”. That sentiment is echoed in the Post Office’s interaction with the Crown Office in Scotland and repeated reassurances about the accuracy of the Horizon system, which have since been exposed as utterly false.

A part of that “unaccountable power” of the Post Office stems from its role as a specialist reporting agency, and the Lord Advocate is right to strip the Post Office of that status. However, I think that Parliament should hear more about the specific rationale for that decision, with which I agree—although, I believe, for differing reasons, according to the limited evidence that has been set out so far. Was the rationale the grievous nature of the offence? Was it that a vital piece of national infrastructure—a postal service—was inherently untrustworthy, or was it the people who ran it? Was it that the profit motive of a privatised utility is incompatible with that status?

Many more such companies remain listed as specialist reporting agencies and I remain concerned about how their standards will be enforced. That is exactly the kind of question that Parliament should have the opportunity to ask. The Lord Advocate stated that work is under way to strengthen the guidance and safeguards that exist, and it is right that Parliament is kept up to date on that work.

On 16 January, the Lord Advocate said:

“There has to be a system of reporting and a system by which the Crown prosecution service in Scotland can rely on successful Government agencies with established reputations as its specialist reporting agencies”.—[Official Report, 16 January 2024; c 28.]

The term “established reputations” is key. Many are long established and have enjoyed that status for hundreds of years. We are debating the general principles of the bill mere minutes after the First Minister’s response to the infected blood inquiry report, when he spoke about the type of culture that we cannot have in our public institutions. That is a vital reminder that we cannot blindly put our faith in the organisations.

The establishment is trusted. It protects itself and the power structures that it relies on. Those of us on the left might attribute more weight to that as a function of inequality—the imbalance of power between those with status and those without, which depends on the money in someone’s pocket and the clothes that they wear. Liberals and Tories will point to the imbalance between the state and the citizen, where unbending bureaucracy too often trumps dignity. In truth, there is little more than a fine difference of perspective when it comes to the experience of citizens.

There must always be necessary checks and balances in our politics. We have to redouble our support for whistleblowers—the honest people who refuse to look the other way or to back down. This is the power of stories, the provocation of public empathy, and the witness borne by literature, theatre and television, where art becomes a mirror that reveals all of us in unsightly relief—Hillsborough, Bloody Sunday, institutional child abuse and Eljamel.

We are decades past the age of deference and we are now reaping its consequences. Each day we seed more scandal, and on it goes. It begs the question of all of us of whether these are historical wrongs or a structural tenet of our state. There remains a culture of institutional cover-up that blights Scotland. Is the way in which we operate the state fit to prevent injustice in our age—a task that it has daily proven to have been incapable of in decades and centuries past?

16:51  

As we have heard from members today, thousands of innocent sub-postmasters have had their lives ruined by being wrongly convicted of offences of dishonesty on the evidence of the faulty Post Office Horizon system.

I am glad that the bill’s passage through the Scottish Parliament will be expedited to allow justice and redress to be delivered to victims as swiftly as possible. Of course, as members have pointed out, the quickest and easiest route to overturn those miscarriages of justice would have been for the UK Government to have extended its own bill to cover sub-postmasters in Scotland. Unfortunately, the Scottish Government’s repeated requests for that were refused.

Nevertheless, the bill that is set before us today should serve symbolic and practical purposes under the overturned convictions scheme that was established by the UK Government. Anyone who was wrongfully convicted as a result of Horizon evidence is eligible to receive compensation of at least £600,000, but that is only once their conviction has been overturned.

Many of those whose wrongful convictions have been overturned, including a constituent of mine, have yet to receive a penny in compensation. As her case is already in the public domain, I will, with her permission, take the opportunity to mention my constituent, Anne Quarm, whom I have been supporting in this matter. Mrs Quarm’s late husband, William, was a sub-postmaster in North Uist.

In around 2009, Mr Quarm, who had run his sub-post office for several years, highlighted to the Post Office that he was experiencing issues with the newly installed Horizon IT system. The Post Office claimed that large sums of money were missing from the end-of-day accounts, a discrepancy that Mr Quarm could not understand. Because of what we all now know were fundamental problems with Horizon, Mr Quarm was initially ordered to pay tens of thousands of pounds. He tried to comply, but simply could not keep up.

Visiting investigators from the Post Office told Mr Quarm—as they, of course, claimed to everyone else in this sorry story—that nobody the country was having any issues with the Horizon system except him. It has since become very clear that those investigators were incompetent, largely untrained and were telling what now seem to have very clearly been untruths.

Mr and Mrs Quarm were prosecuted on the strength of the evidence provided by the Post Office and had their sub-post office taken from them. The attached family-run shop also had to be sold. They lost their family home, much of their croft and their small bed-and-breakfast business. They soon became insolvent as a result.

Mr Quarm’s health quickly deteriorated, leaving Mrs Quarm to plead for her husband to be allowed to spend his final days in his own home, ahead of that home having to be disposed of. Despite them working for the Post Office for 14 years, it was also decided that Mr and Mrs Quarm should not have anything paid out to them from Mr Quarm’s pension. That decision has—incredibly—never been corrected.

Sadly, Mr Quarm died two years after being prosecuted on the strength of evidence provided by the Post Office. Aside from their financial losses, they both suffered enormous levels of stress at a time when Mr Quarm was already seriously ill. To that must be added the strain for Mrs Quarm of trying to contain the details of her situation in a small island community where the stigma that is associated with any prosecution is very significant. The couple, who were liked and well respected, were left completely shattered. Today, Mrs Quarm is living in rented accommodation and is having to work full time at a point when she should really be thinking of retirement.

Mr and Mrs Quarm were eventually exonerated by a court of all the crimes of which the Post Office had accused them, but, unfortunately, that came well after Mr Quarm’s death. To date, Mrs Quarm has not received a penny of compensation. Although I understand that the Post Office has offered to make an interim payment, that is yet to be seen, and there is still no sign of those payments being processed. At no stage has the Post Office or the UK Government—the sole shareholder in the Post Office—offered any support whatsoever, and the family have had to defend themselves at their own expense.

I am sure that members will agree that Mrs Quarm and her late husband have been treated shamefully by an organisation in which the UK Government is, as I say, the sole shareholder. I wrote to Kevin Hollinrake MP, the UK Minister for Enterprise, Markets and Small Business, on 26 February on Mrs Quarm’s behalf, and I have written twice again since. I have received no reply from him, far less any indication of what has become of any interim payment, any compensation or even Mrs Quarm’s pension. I hope that I will get a reply sometime. I think that members will agree that Mrs Quarm deserves that, at the very least.

16:56  

I thank all members who have told the stories of their constituents and community members who have been affected by the scandal. It is those people—the victims and survivors of this gross miscarriage of justice—and their families who must be at the forefront of our minds as we consider the bill this week. It is those people and the horrific experiences that they have been through that must be in our minds as we work to ensure that they receive effective compensation and redress, and support them to do so.

It is also those people who must be central as we learn the lessons of the scandal about our justice system, our culture around corporate power and our treatment of people who raise concerns about systems and processes that affect and control their lives.

Innocent people lost their lives. Innocent people were convicted of crimes that did not even exist. Innocent people have suffered financial distress, emotional trauma and so much more, because of failures in both the public and private sectors. We have hard work to do to renew the trust that they will have lost—trust not only in institutions such as the Post Office and in the technology that so many of us rely on, but—in many ways, more fundamentally—in our justice system and our politics.

Of course, part of rebuilding of trust is about enabling better understanding of the responsibilities of private and public agencies. I have spoken already in the debate, as have other members, about the dangers of the privatisation and corporatisation of vital services and utilities. We must work, too, on improving the accountability of the institutions that are involved and, as a consequence, accountability for the decisions that we make as politicians, because we set the frameworks within which others—perhaps not all, but most—function.

This afternoon, I have been heartened to see the extent of consensus across the Parliament on the urgency of the bill, the need to ensure that it is comprehensive and the desire to address the causes as well as the consequences of this appalling injustice.

From a constitutional point of view—I am speaking of the constitutional issue that is actually of relevance to us today—it is deeply regrettable that we need to have legislation to overturn court judgments. It is a sign not of the breakdown of the principle of the separation of powers, but of the extraordinary scale on which that miscarriage of justice was allowed to occur.

It is important to recognise that this kind of legislation is exceptional and should not be the norm, but it is equally important to recognise that, in these extraordinary and exceptional circumstances, it is the right thing to do.

This bill is not a rubber-stamping exercise that exactly mirrors UK legislation, nor will the eventual act be a direct copy. The UK Government was asked to legislate for Scotland but chose not to do so, so we must take our responsibility seriously and we must, as I said in my opening speech, make this law as robust, inclusive and effective as possible.

Our debates today and on Thursday will give us the opportunity to do that together and I trust that today’s spirit of co-operation and joint endeavour will characterise the discussions that we will have in two days.

We speak this week for the people who have been affected by that miscarriage of justice. It is for them that we seek not only to quash the convictions that they should never have faced but to ensure that they get compensation and redress. It is for them that we seek justice.

17:00  

The chain of wrongdoing that we have discussed today is a long one, indeed. It goes beyond the Post Office to include the Fujitsu engineers and officials who knew that they were abusing the system in order to get accounts to balance.

James Arbuthnot played a pivotal role in helping sub-postmasters to achieve justice. He never gave up and was never brushed off. Katy Clark and other MPs at the time were well aware of the controversy, so why were others unaware of it?

Fergus Ewing and Jamie Greene are correct to say that lessons must be learned. As Alasdair Allan highlighted, for hundreds of otherwise law-abiding people—who ran small businesses up and down the country and were important figures in their communities, helping people with their pensions, savings and benefits—the very role that they played in those communities was the one that hurt them, because of this unlawful scandal.

Sub-postmasters signed contracts to make good any losses. Why would 800 or so of them then defraud themselves of thousands of pounds, knowing that they would face criminal proceedings? That does not make a great deal of sense.

Even the helpline that was set up to help sub-postmasters to deal with the Horizon computer system was said to be an utter nightmare. People were kept on hold for hours on end when they were trying to learn how to use the system and could not get the money to balance. That was a tell-tale sign, in itself.

I never really understood why no one in any of the institutions, including in the Crown itself, did not question why there was a sudden onslaught of referrals from the Post Office about so many small businesses suddenly defrauding the system of tens of thousands of pounds every day. Why did that never ring alarm bells in any of those institutions, as they proceeded with prosecutions?

Jamie Greene is correct. That is why Scottish Labour believes that we need answers, that we should be debating the matter here in Scotland and that the legislation should be dealt with here in Scotland. The system that was set up to help sub-postmasters to run efficient businesses was the one that wrongly criminalised them.

Maggie Chapman is right to say that both Parliaments must act with emergency legislation, but it will require considerable effort to find all the sub-postmasters who were wrongly convicted. We knew following a court case in 2019 that there were unsafe convictions, so I wonder whether the Scottish Government raised any questions in 2019 about what action should have been taken following the court case to find out whether there were unsafe convictions in Scotland. Given the earlier discussion about the duty of disclosure, I wonder whether the cabinet secretary could deal with that. I know that she was not in post at the time, but the question is pertinent.

The emergency bill will be important, but it is useful to understand how many people might benefit, and to know about the pipeline of cases that exist. I will talk about a case that I mentioned to the cabinet secretary—that of Ravinder Singh Naga, who pled guilty when he was innocent, in relation to the case of a Post Office that it was ordered be shut in 2009 and which is still closed. He appeared alongside his mother. He was not employed in the post office, but helped his mother in his spare time. However, to save her, he pled guilty even though he was innocent and was given a community sentence. He sadly contracted tuberculosis and almost died. He is as much a victim as anyone else. I plead with the Scottish Government to consider how we could amend the bill to ensure that it covers him.

It would be helpful if we worked together on the issue and shared with each other all the amendments as early as possible, because we want Thursday to go smoothly. However, Michael Marra and Katy Clark are absolutely right about the institutional cover-up, the lies and the deceit by not just one official, but several among the top brass in Post Office Ltd. The star witness is appearing tomorrow for the next three days: the scandal will be even deeper than it is right now.

Alasdair Allan highlighted the compensation failures. That issue must be addressed and rightly so. Scottish Labour supports that being done as a UK bill.

Let us work together to make sure that such an injustice never happens again. Let us get the bill right, ensure that the convictions are overturned and track down as many people as possible who can benefit from the emergency legislation.

17:06  

The issue that is at stake demands urgent attention and action from everybody in the Scottish Parliament. Every party must put politics to one side and focus only on delivering for the victims of the scandal and their families.

Many excellent contributions were made that, rightly, emphasised the gravity and importance of the bill. We must get it right and we must do so quickly. Around the chamber, speakers got to the heart of the tragedy that unfolded over many years when the Post Office wrongly went after sub-postmasters based on a faulty system. As Pauline McNeill mentioned, we need to question Fujitsu’s role in that.

Many colleagues spoke movingly about the damage and ruin that devastated the lives of many innocent people. Alasdair Allan spoke of the devastating case of his constituents, Mr and Mrs Quarm. Few topics provoke such a strong cross-party response as horrendous mass miscarriages of justice, such as happened in this instance.

I highlight the powerful contribution by Russell Findlay, who quoted the families of victims who, sadly, lost their lives before their names were cleared. He mentioned a number of cases of those who were wrongly accused and those who took their own lives. I cannot imagine the grief and despondency that those people felt when they passed away with a guilty verdict against their names although they had done nothing wrong but had no means at their disposal to prove that they were good and honest people.

Ruth Maguire made a very emotional point about the impact that being embroiled in that horrific turn of events had on people’s mental and physical health. Lives were turned upside down in ways that can never be rectified. The toll that that took on people’s health cannot be calculated. I pay tribute to all the people who kept going and somehow stayed strong in the face of that terrible miscarriage of justice.

Murdo Fraser spoke movingly about the fact that sub-postmasters were often some of the most well-thought-of people in their communities. They were considered honourable, decent, honest, moral and reliable but were told that they could not challenge the Horizon evidence. They pled guilty to charges of which they were innocent. It is particularly tragic that the scandal wrecked the lives of that group of people. They were branded criminals and outcasts of society when they were the exact opposite.

Jamie Greene spoke about the consequences of the financial ruin that victims suffered. They were told to resign or be prosecuted. Who knows how many lives that has affected even beyond the victims themselves? A number of young people will have grown up in very different circumstances because their parents were wrongfully convicted. That is one of the many heartbreaking aspects of the affair.

Katy Clark and others asked the same question pointedly: why has it taken so long? Why did it take a TV programme, “Mr Bates vs The Post Office”, to get things moving? We should all keep asking ourselves that question and every party should reflect on it.

Pauline McNeill made a particularly strong speech, which focused on the inability of politicians and the legal system to correct any earlier this grotesque injustice. Why did they not question it? Computer Weekly wrote an article on it as far back as 2009. Why did alarm bells not ring at that time?

Finally, victims in Scotland will receive some sort of justice through the bill, It will not undo the damage, but I hope that it brings some small comfort that their name will be fully cleared.

It is right that the legislation is treated as an emergency. The existing approach, prior to the introduction of the bill, has not been anywhere near swift enough. Just six convictions have so far been quashed, and it is estimated that the number of convictions that may end up being overturned by the bill is in the hundreds—possibly, the thousands.

I will briefly pick up on the point that the Government wasted time in a constitutional spat with the UK Government instead of recognising immediately that a bespoke solution would be required in Scotland, in consideration of the unique elements of our justice system. It is disappointing that the SNP Government has attempted to politicise the scandal at various points, especially given that it appears that, for several months, it did not speak with one voice about its approach. The Lord Advocate appeared to say very different things from the previous First Minister or the cabinet secretary. At times, they seemed to be directly at odds with one another over what should happen.

I hope that the SNP will now set politics to one side, because that is what everyone here needs to do. We need to get the politics out of this, because every mainstream political party shares some blame.

As a result, I agree with the cabinet secretary about the need for the broad approach that the bill delivers. It is an exceptional response but is merited in this instance. In this scandal, justice has been undermined by the actions of the Post Office and, in Scotland, those of the Crown Office. The legislation corrects terrible mistakes. It does not undermine justice—it delivers it.

Some in the legal community, including the Lord Advocate, have suggested that mass exoneration could potentially mean the overturning of some convictions that do not represent a miscarriage of justice. However, hundreds of innocent people deserve the most urgent action. That is why the legislation, which will bring justice to all who were wrongfully accused and convicted, is welcome.

I agree with Fergus Ewing and Beatrice Wishart that there should be an investigation into why the Crown acted as it did. That has been described as a monumental cover-up. We need a cultural shift to people’s taking of responsibility. We have to learn.

Michael Marra said that we cannot blindly put our faith in established organisations and that we need to redouble our support for whistleblowers.

The initial tainted evidence that convicted many innocent people came from the Post Office but, in Scotland, the Crown Office pursued the cases. It did so for several years after it became aware of concerns about the Horizon system. That cannot be swept under the rug. It has to be investigated and lessons must be learned. The Crown Office was often quick to prosecute, yet it has been slow to help the process of exoneration. One of the legacies of the scandal should be ensuring that the Crown Office learns from the serious failures that were involved in the scenario.

Today’s debate has been a good starting point. It has covered many key issues and considerations that should be at the forefront of our minds as the legislation quickly progresses. It is vital that we get that right, and that we do so urgently. Victims of the scandal have already lost so much. Their former lives are gone—destroyed by the actions of the Post Office. We owe it to them to put politics aside and to give them some small resolution, by quashing their convictions as swiftly as possible.

17:14  

I thank all members for their contributions. I agree with Sharon Dowey—or at least, with her opening remarks that, at this juncture, we should be putting politics aside. I say to her that it takes two to tango. I will, of course, take away the points that have been made today that are pertinent to the Scottish Government and the legislation that is before us, and give them all very serious consideration. Immediately after decision time, I will meet my officials so that we can proceed to the next stage.

I am particularly grateful to Beatrice Wishart and Ruth Maguire for their close and forensic attention to the bill that is before us. Like Clare Adamson, I, too, pay tribute to the work that Marion Fellows has done, and to what many others endured and tackled over many years, prior to the TV programme.

As I said in my opening speech, the bill is vital in ensuring that Scottish postmasters are not disadvantaged compared with victims of the Post Office Horizon scandal in the rest of the UK. Everyone who has contributed to today’s debate has spoken about the trauma associated with the injustice. We know that the victims have lost their homes and reputations—and some have even lost their lives. They have waited a very long time—indeed, too long—to have their names and reputations cleared. Although the bill cannot change the past, I hope that it will go some way to addressing these horrific miscarriages of justice.

I was very pained to hear what Dr Allan said about the plight of his constituent, Mrs Quarm, and that of her deceased husband, and about how that family has still to receive compensation. I can say to Dr Allan—and I make this offer to other members, too—that I have written to the UK Government on the issue of compensation, but I am more than happy to follow up on my own correspondence on behalf of the Government with individual cases reflecting the concerns that constituency and regional MSPs will have. Although the three compensation schemes in existence are the responsibility of the UK Government, I am happy to share whatever information I have, if that is of assistance to members.

I believe that it is prudent not to complete stage 3 before the UK bill is passed in its final form, notwithstanding the fact that there are some select differences between the Scottish bill and the UK bill, which our bill is designed, by and large, to mirror. That is simply because I want to ensure parity in how convictions are quashed, notwithstanding the differences in Scots law. More importantly, great care is needed to ensure that we are not rumbustious or cack-handed, and that we do not do anything that jeopardises people’s access to compensation.

As I outlined to the Criminal Justice Committee, I will endeavour to make as much progress as possible, and that is why I have intimated that I will schedule the amending stage 3 process.

Jamie Greene intimated that we should complete our process before the summer recess, and I certainly hope that we can do that. We are following the UK Government’s bill timetable very closely. The way things are done at Westminster is different, as is that Parliament’s right: it can be a bit of a moveable feast. I do not want to burst Mr Greene’s bubble, but he said that, if we were to complete the process, we could come back after the summer recess if needs be and take any further action. That further action would be a bill. I must also say to Mr Greene that I would not be waiting until after the summer recess. I can assure him that, if I need to make a respectful plea for Parliament to be recalled in the interests of swift action and swift justice, I will not hesitate to do so.

Mr Findlay raised some understandable questions about why the level of response to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission was so low. Other members, Audrey Nicoll in particular, have spoken about the actions that were undertaken by the commission, which, I can assure members, did more than just write people a letter. It used tracing agents and made attempts to trace next of kin if someone was deceased. It has gone above and beyond, but the difficulties that it has encountered simply speak to the need for the bill, because people have lost faith in our justice system.

On that point, can the cabinet secretary explain why the number is now up from 73 to potentially 2,000? Where has that huge gulf in figures come from?

I am grateful to Mr Findlay for the opportunity to clarify that. There are up to 1,000 cases across the UK. We do not anticipate 2,000 wrongful convictions in Scotland—I put that on record. The SCCRC’s information came from the Crown and other sources, and it proactively wrote to nearly 80 people, I think it is now. I said to Mr Ewing earlier that our best estimate—and it is our best estimate—is that there are around 200 convictions to be overturned. However, to ensure that we leave no stone unturned, we will look at the thousands of cases where there is a listed relevant offence. I am happy to follow up on that in further detail, as Mr Findlay sees fit.

On non-disclosure agreements, I say to Clare Adamson that I very much appreciate her concern. NDAs are not part of the criminal law landscape, and the focus of the bill is to quash relevant criminal convictions. However, the Post Office Ltd sent a letter to Liam Byrne MP, chair of the Business and Trade Committee, and I will share that correspondence. Again, it is somewhat complex. It may give reassurance on the Horizon shortfall scheme in some respects, but it may raise other questions for members. Members may be aware that the Post Office Ltd has waived its rights under NDAs for the purposes of the Sir Wyn Williams inquiry.

The massive failures of the Post Office have largely masked the responsibility of the software writer Fujitsu for the errors that led to the scandal. Is the cabinet secretary aware that the Post Office, which is a UK Government agency, has, incredibly, continued to award contract extensions to Fujitsu for the Horizon system, which the Post Office is still using despite continuing reports of defects, to the tune of £95 million since 2021?

Fujitsu’s role in the Horizon scandal is one of the issues that are rightly being reviewed by Sir Wyn Williams in his statutory inquiry, as instructed by the UK Government. It is a matter of public record that Fujitsu has one contract with the core Scottish Government. I know that my colleague Neil Gray, when he was in his previous position as Cabinet Secretary for Wellbeing Economy, Fair Work and Energy, expressed the Government’s expectations on a range of pertinent matters. The one contract that Fujitsu has—the electronic counting contract—will be retendered before the next Scotland-wide local government elections.

While we are on the issue of the public inquiry, it is important to emphasise that it is UK-wide, including Scotland, so it includes prosecution services in Scotland. The Scottish Government’s agreement to that was signed off by my predecessor, Keith Brown.

On potential amendments, I understand why Maggie Chapman and Pauline McNeill have raised concerns and why they are advocating for the bill to apply to those who were not involved in operating a Post Office business or were not working in a Post Office business. There are some difficulties with that in terms of meeting the five criteria that are listed in the bill, and there are some risks around it, which I would be more than happy to discuss with Maggie Chapman and Pauline McNeill.

I appreciate that the cabinet secretary is going to consider that, but one other thing to consider is that, in the case that I raised, in which the person was not a sub-postmaster, the evidence that was used to convict him was still the same evidence, and there was no stealing of any money. Therefore, it amounts to the same principle.

In terms of the here and now, I point members to the redress shortfall scheme. Obviously, we have discussed at length the opportunities around the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission but, more fundamentally, I need to discuss with members whether we are getting the balance right, because we have a balance to strike. As Maggie Chapman and Jamie Greene have acknowledged, these are extraordinary circumstances that have resulted in the extraordinary action of Parliament passing a bill to overturn convictions. As justice secretary, I have to say that that should in no way be a precedent, and it is a grave undertaking. I believe that we are doing that for the very best of reasons.

The bill as it stands already carries some risk, and we are carrying that risk because the priority is to capture all those who have suffered a miscarriage of justice. At the end of the day, it will be for Parliament to decide some limits on the scope of the bill. In doing so, we will have to be absolutely clear that we have got the balance correct.

I reaffirm my commitment to working constructively with all parties in the chamber to ensure that we overturn an unprecedented miscarriage of justice and, ultimately, deliver justice for postmasters in Scotland. I say to Mr Ewing and others that of course we have work to do. We have a lot of work to do to rebuild trust and address causes and consequences. With members’ co-operation, I am sure that we will do just that.