Chamber and committees

Investment is essential to reconfigure the yard and undo changes that were made when it was in private ownership, but many are warning that time is running out.

State-aid rules are, obviously, complex, but countries such as Italy rely on exemptions in order to invest in shipbuilding. Does the First Minister recognise the urgency of the situation and will he find a pathway to ensure that support is provided, given the strategic importance of the yard?

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to improve facilities at railway stations operated by ScotRail. (S6O-03475)

To ask the First Minister whether he will provide an update on what action the Scottish Government is taking to support the Ferguson Marine shipyard. (S6F-03150)

Figures that were released to my office by ScotRail show that only 22 per cent of Scotland’s 357 train stations have toilets for public and staff use, that fewer than one in five stations have baby changing facilities and that only two stations have the changing places facilities that are important for disabled passengers. Does the cabinet secretary agree that those are basic passenger expectations and that we must increase the number of such facilities in stations? Is that being made clear to ScotRail?

I have a question for Robin Johnston. In previous evidence sessions, we have heard reference to the right of individual police officers not to incriminate themselves. Will you expand on that and explain that? In what circumstances is it appropriate that police officers have that right, given that, presumably, the purpose of the complaints process is to try to get to the truth?

That is helpful. I hope that it is possible to ask a supplementary question on non-disclosure agreements. Perhaps Fiona McQueen might be best placed to answer it, because she has raised that issue. Many organisations use non-disclosure agreements as a matter of routine. They use them in almost every situation when there is any kind of payment. I know that your organisation has decided as a matter of policy not to use them. The Police Federation says that non-disclosure agreements are used in 99 per cent of legal cases that are settled. That may or may not be an accurate statistic, but it gives the impression that they are used quite a lot. Police Scotland is a public body that gets public money, and you have referred to the fact that the employee might want to rely on non-disclosure agreements and privacy clauses in certain circumstances. Could you expand now, or perhaps in writing afterwards, on when you think such clauses are appropriate and how we could define when they are appropriate, so that we do not have a situation where they are used as a matter of routine?

ACAS guidance is not the only issue if NDAs are used so widely. We know that they are used in a very widespread way by many organisations that ACAS guidance applies to. Information on the public policy issues would be extremely helpful.

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.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the redevelopment of Ardrossan harbour. (S6O-03451)

CalMac Ferries has said that it is the failure of port owners, Peel Ports, to invest that has left the harbour in substandard condition, despite the owners receiving more than £15 million in harbour dues over the past decade. Given the long-standing issues, there have been repeated calls to bring the port into public ownership.

Does the cabinet secretary accept that the current situation is unacceptable? Will she confirm the Scottish Government’s commitment to Ardrossan and outline her strategy? Given that there has been no meeting of the task force since March 2023—I note that there is due to be one later today—will she come back to the chamber with a statement to outline the Government’s approach?