Not today; thank you.

I welcome the fact that many wrongful convictions have already been overturned. However, it feels as if the pace of progress is far too slow, so the bill will help to expedite the process. I note the recognition by the Law Society of Scotland that cases relating to the Horizon system dramatically affected a significant number of people who have been seeking justice for many years, and that taking a case-by-case approach to such a significant number of convictions would be a slow mechanism that might impede those affected in obtaining the recognition and compensation that they deserve.

During the stage 1 debate, members told heartbreaking stories of the shameful way in which their constituents were treated by the Post Office over many years. That was compounded by the fact that the Horizon system was faulty but, as Clare Adamson said in her stage 1 contribution, it took a television drama to shift the dial on the issue.

We know that many people who suffered those injustices have not come forward and that not everyone who was wrongly accused is still with us. I therefore welcome the proposals in the bill for the wrong that those individuals suffered to be addressed.

I welcome the amendments made at stage 2 to ensure that everyone whose conviction meets the criteria in the bill will have that conviction quashed, regardless of any previous appeal decisions. Maggie Chapman articulated the rationale for that very well in her stage 2 contribution in support of a Government amendment.

I also welcome today’s amendments that have altered the criteria for a relevant offence, thereby ensuring that, where the offence was alleged to be committed over a period of time, there is no requirement for Horizon to have been used throughout that period; it requires to have been used only for some of the period.

I also welcome the inclusion of a reporting requirement in the bill, which is absolutely appropriate in these unique circumstances, and I welcome the cabinet secretary’s commitment to provide the Criminal Justice Committee with an interim update.

We do not have the power to turn back time, but we do have the power to stand up for those who have been so badly wronged, to publicly declare that wrongdoing and, so far as is possible, to help them find the place where they would have been in their lives but for that injustice.

I am pleased to speak in this stage 3 debate on the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences (Scotland) Bill, which is an emergency bill that allows the Scottish Parliament to legislate at pace to overturn convictions that are linked to the Post Office Horizon IT system.

We are all familiar with the faulty software and the Horizon accounting system that aimed to reduce fraud in local Post Office branches but became the focus of one of the most significant injustices in our legal history. I pay tribute to the sub-postmasters who, despite being bullied and intimidated by the Post Office, have worked tirelessly to expose the failings of a greedy and reckless corporation, the sole shareholder of which is the UK Government.

The quickest and easiest route to overturning the numerous miscarriages of justice would have been for the UK Government to extend its own bill to cover sub-postmasters in Scotland. Unfortunately, the Scottish Government’s repeated requests for that to happen were refused. Nevertheless, the bill that is before us at stage 3 should serve symbolic and practical purposes under the overturned convictions scheme that has been established by the UK Government.

On the complaints process, the committee heard evidence from a number of witnesses that, although they feel that the bill’s provisions are fine in themselves, they would like to see a more radical overhaul of the complaints process so that it is as independent as possible. Does the bill go far enough to meet those aspirations, particularly the aspirations of members of the public and former officers who have had experience of the complaints system and have indicated that an independent process would be more transparent and effective?

Last week, HMICS picked up on the point that you made about the inclusion of former officers in the PIRC. It highlighted the balance between independence and staff in the PIRC having the skill set to run complex investigations involving things such as mobile telephony and data. It seems to be about getting that balance right.

I will open up the questions to members.

In its evidence, the Scottish Police Authority expressed support for the provision that relates to calling in complaints being a function of the PIRC. It felt that that was a positive step forward. I am interested in the backdrop to the inclusion of that provision.

As I said, the SPA was broadly supportive of that provision. The committee also heard other evidence that that provision would enhance the investigation process.

The bill places an individual duty of candour on police officers only, although staff would be covered by a separate organisational duty of candour, achieved by amending the policing principles. Should that individual duty also apply to all police staff or at least to those with the same powers and responsibilities as police officers, such as custody staff, who have a particular role? They are not police officers—they are staff—but they have a type of role about which there is the potential for complaints to be made. That is the view of the PIRC, Police Scotland and HMICS, although that is opposed by Unison. I am interested in your response to that.

I am sorry, Ms Dowey, but I need to bring in other members.

Three members still want to come in. We have 15 minutes or so left, so I ask for succinct questions and responses.

That would be helpful—follow-up correspondence would allow for more time now.

That brings us slightly over time. I thank the cabinet secretary and her officials for their attendance this morning—it has been most helpful.

With that, we move into private session.