The cabinet secretary has comprehensively made it clear that the Government has taken the decision in order to strengthen engagement with parents and carers. Can she add anything further, in particular in and around the role that the views of parents and carers can play?

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 on 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.

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. That 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.

The Home Office review, which I mentioned in my first question, also notes that the introduction of legally qualified chairs for all ranks has introduced delays into the system. It has also left chief constables with “insufficient responsibility” or oversight

“over proceedings relating to their own workforce”.

Do you have any comments on that? Would that finding shift your view on recommending the introduction of independent, legally qualified chairs for all ranks of officers?

Good morning, and welcome to the 19th meeting in 2024 of the Criminal Justice Committee. We have received no apologies.

Our business today is to continue our evidence taking on the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill at stage 1.

I welcome to the meeting the Rt Hon Lady Elish Angiolini KC, who joins us remotely. We are grateful to her for agreeing to provide evidence to the committee.

I refer members to papers 1 and 2. I intend to allow up to 60 minutes for this evidence session.

I have an opening question, Lady Elish. Since you produced your review of the police complaints process in 2020, the Scottish Government has introduced the bill that we are currently scrutinising. There have also been high-profile cases involving complaints and matters such as vetting, such as the Gemma MacRae decision in Scotland and the Sarah Everard case in England. Will the bill as it is currently drafted make the difference that you would like to see? Alternatively, do changes or improvements need to be made to it? If so, how?

Thank you. That is an interesting perspective.

I will now open up questions to members. I will bring in Russell Findlay and then Sharon Dowey.

I will come back to you, Sharon, if we have time, which is very limited.

We are just coming up to time. Thank you, Lady Elish, for joining us today. That was a very interesting and informative session, and I very much appreciate it.

I wonder whether I could follow up a line of questioning from Pauline McNeill about misconduct proceedings relating to former officers. In its review of the process of police officer dismissals in 2023, the Home Office notes that the process of continuing misconduct proceedings against former officers

“is an expensive, time-consuming process which draws forces’ resources away from dealing with those individuals who are still serving.”

I am interested in your views on that conclusion and your reflections on why it is important that there is a provision in the bill on misconduct proceedings against former officers.

That is interesting. I have a final, quick question from Rona Mackay, and then we will have to draw the session to a close.