You said that the conduct regulations would be reviewed once the bill had been passed. Why can they not be reviewed and actioned just now? Why do we have to wait for the bill to be passed? If you are getting complaints and you know what the issues are, why are you not reviewing all the misconduct regulations now? When we had the Scottish Police Federation in to give evidence, it said that performance and misconduct regulations are not being implemented just now. Do you come across that in complaints, and why are the police not currently implementing the regulations that they already have?

We heard evidence from the Scottish Police Federation that some issues with the complaints and misconduct processes could be dealt with through the existing conduct and performance regulations, but they have never been enacted properly. They are now seen as a punishment, and the system

“investigates ... at the top level and not at the bottom level”.—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 8 May 2024; c 28.]

Could I get your comments on that?

When there is irrefutable evidence, do you still have to pay somebody in their employment up to the point that it gets to a court case, even though it is obvious that they will not be able to continue in employment?

So you need legislation for some things, but do you need training for other bits? Is there a lack of training in some areas? One of our witnesses heard that he had been put on to restricted duties, but he was never told why; since then, we have heard more evidence that there was no reason why that should have happened. I find it hard to believe that somebody could be either suspended or put on restricted duties without being told why. Is there a training or performance management issue there?

I want to follow on from your conversation with the convener and ask again about what difference a code of ethics will have if there are no sanctions. The code has been described as symbolic; you are saying that what we are putting in legislation is really just a guide and that the disciplinary processes should be separate.

So, it is something to aspire to. In that case, is there any benefit in putting it in legislation?

I perhaps need to get my head around what actually needs legislation and what can be put into your handbook, if you like.

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.

Good morning. My question follows on from my colleague Russell Findlay’s line of questioning. As he said, the amount specified in the financial memorandum has increased from £1.4 million to £5.8 million and it is set to rise substantially, judging from the evidence that we have heard. A number of provisions in the bill require more regulations in secondary legislation. Are you concerned that there is not more detail in the bill, and would you have any concern that the costs of implementing what are unknown measures will add a substantial cost to the financial memorandum, which could eventually risk the act’s implementation if the resource is not provided? You said that

“We cannot have a half-baked version”.

Would you have concerns that, if we do not put the right finances in, we will not get the right result?

One witness said that he was placed on restricted duties and told that he was a danger to the public, but he was not informed why that was the case. Yesterday, we heard from the criminal allegations against the police division of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service that there was no reason why he should not have been told at the time. The Scottish Police Federation has questioned whether some of the legislation is required, or whether the performance management tools and regulations that are already in place simply need to be used. I do not know whether you have had a chance to look at everything that is in the bill, but do you think that some of the legislation is not required and that we need to look at the training in the police to ensure that they are following their own procedures?