Chamber and committees

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.

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s statement and the approach that she has taken in trying to consult other political parties. Scottish Labour has been concerned about the steep rise in prison populations for some time now. Can the cabinet secretary advise how many prisoners the Government plans to release early and what advice is she receiving on that? Can she guarantee that no violent offenders will be released? Can she also advise what other measures are being considered?

In particular, the cabinet secretary will be aware that Scottish Labour has been calling for the modernisation of electronic monitoring systems, including the use of general packet radio service systems. Can she advise what work is being undertaken to progress better electronic monitoring systems and, indeed, to ensure that there is full compliance when those systems are ordered, given that that has, as we know, been an issue in the past?

Does the First Minister accept that it is now too late to go to tender, which means that, irrespective of the outcome of the due diligence process, it will be necessary for CalMac to continue to provide the service after September, and that it is therefore only fair to let CalMac know that as soon as possible?

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?

Until 2015, I was a member of the UK Parliament and a member of the select committee that took evidence in that year. However, like many other MPs, I was aware of the serious concerns that had been raised about the Horizon convictions prior to then. Does the Lord Advocate not accept that it was clear from at least 2013 that it was unsafe to prosecute those cases and that any convictions were unreliable? Has the Lord Advocate given thought to why the Crown Office wished to accept what the Post Office said and to prosecute so many people who had always been law abiding, when there was so much concern that there had been miscarriages of justice?

The delivery plan refers to the modernisation of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service but not to the state of the fire estate, although a national review of the service has been published. Nearly half of the fire estate has been assessed as being in either bad condition or poor condition. What priority is the Scottish Government giving to the lack of adequate decontamination facilities available to many firefighters, given the serious medical consequences of contact with toxins?

Could I go to David Kennedy to get the federation’s perspective? Would you have any concerns?

If we can put the resource issue to one side, would you have a problem with such an approach? It is not a question of whether a case has been made in relation to the police; independent complaints processes are being considered across a range of institutions. Is there any reason why we should not go down that path if the resource implications were equivalent?

Some of the witnesses on the previous panel were supportive of a completely independent complaints process, which they referred to as the gold standard. There have been concerns about the resource implications of such an approach in the past, but one witness on the previous panel made the point that the same resource issues exist with the current PIRC system. What is your response to the proposal for an independent complaints process, which operates in several other countries? We will start with Chief Superintendent Hay.