Chamber and committees

I agree that that is a central question that still needs to be answered by the Crown Office. Why was that so, when it was clear that the evidence that was used as corroboration might have been unsafe? That is where the duty of disclosure should have applied. We require answers to that.

However, in cases in which no actual money was missing in the first place, as a layperson, I ask the question: were bank accounts checked? Why was it only the Horizon system that was relied on, because, in most cases of fraud, it is a requirement to find where the money went?

Crucially, contractually, sub-postmasters were obliged to make good any losses. Given that knowledge, surely any prosecutor would ask what the motive is of a sub-postmaster who is contractually obliged to make good any losses. That is the questionable bit when it comes to looking at whether the evidence was there.

I acknowledge and applaud the Scottish Crown Office, which has now stripped the Post Office of its status as a reporting body, but many other reporting bodies report to the Crown Office. It is vitally important that lessons are learned here, because it is not inconceivable that other reporting bodies are relying on poor evidence. We need to be sure about that.

Scottish Labour supports the Government in its emergency legislation to ensure that all victims are exonerated. We will never be able to put those lives back together, but, in our dealings, we can record this as a monumental miscarriage of justice with breathtaking levels of cover-up and cruelty beyond comprehension. We will stand up today and do what we think is right, and get those who should be answerable for this dreadful situation held to account.

Jamie Greene is correct. That is why Scottish Labour believes that we need answers, that we should be debating the matter here in Scotland and that the legislation should be dealt with here in Scotland. The system that was set up to help sub-postmasters to run efficient businesses was the one that wrongly criminalised them.

Maggie Chapman is right to say that both Parliaments must act with emergency legislation, but it will require considerable effort to find all the sub-postmasters who were wrongly convicted. We knew following a court case in 2019 that there were unsafe convictions, so I wonder whether the Scottish Government raised any questions in 2019 about what action should have been taken following the court case to find out whether there were unsafe convictions in Scotland. Given the earlier discussion about the duty of disclosure, I wonder whether the cabinet secretary could deal with that. I know that she was not in post at the time, but the question is pertinent.

The emergency bill will be important, but it is useful to understand how many people might benefit, and to know about the pipeline of cases that exist. I will talk about a case that I mentioned to the cabinet secretary—that of Ravinder Singh Naga, who pled guilty when he was innocent, in relation to the case of a Post Office that it was ordered be shut in 2009 and which is still closed. He appeared alongside his mother. He was not employed in the post office, but helped his mother in his spare time. However, to save her, he pled guilty even though he was innocent and was given a community sentence. He sadly contracted tuberculosis and almost died. He is as much a victim as anyone else. I plead with the Scottish Government to consider how we could amend the bill to ensure that it covers him.

It would be helpful if we worked together on the issue and shared with each other all the amendments as early as possible, because we want Thursday to go smoothly. However, Michael Marra and Katy Clark are absolutely right about the institutional cover-up, the lies and the deceit by not just one official, but several among the top brass in Post Office Ltd. The star witness is appearing tomorrow for the next three days: the scandal will be even deeper than it is right now.

Alasdair Allan highlighted the compensation failures. That issue must be addressed and rightly so. Scottish Labour supports that being done as a UK bill.

Let us work together to make sure that such an injustice never happens again. Let us get the bill right, ensure that the convictions are overturned and track down as many people as possible who can benefit from the emergency legislation.

Thank you.

It is when a case goes to the procurator fiscal that it can take up to six months, although the times are getting better.

I am thinking that complaints of assault against police officers must be quite common.

We heard from the PIRC yesterday that it has a target of up to 90 days, and it seems to be meeting that.

Good morning. Thank you for your evidence; it has been helpful to hear it.

You have partially answered some of my questions, which are around time limits and getting the balance right. The committee does not have a lot of information about the categories of complaints against police officers—we are a wee bit in the dark—but there are two scenarios that I can think of. If we insisted that the Government attach time limits, would that undermine the provisions in the bill?

The idea of extending proceedings against former police officers up to 12 months, or beyond if the PIRC thought it was proportionate to do so, seems to be generally welcomed. However, those police officers might have sought other employment and gone on to new lives during that time. Notwithstanding what you said about the possible complexity of the cases, would setting some time limits undermine the new provision?

I would have thought that those were quite simple matters to deal with, although I do not know. I am thinking about serving police officers. We have heard about many instances in which it has taken up to two years to deal with such matters. To me, as a layperson, it seems a simple matter that should not take two years. We are trying to strike the balance of fairness. Despite what you have said about the power of police officers, it seems an awful long time to have a case hanging over them, so time limits might be appropriate in simple cases.

After 2015, why did the Crown Office not apply its on-going duty of disclosure to all the people who had been convicted using Horizon evidence? No cases were revisited and no convicted postmasters were written to until well after—

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with Glasgow City Council and representatives of the taxi trade, in light of reports of potentially significant job losses in the sector as a result of the implementation of the low-emission zone. (S6O-03450)

How can Scotland, in the long run, repair its reputation with regard to holding prisoners in humane conditions? Severe overcrowding is impacting on rehabilitation, which is absolutely necessary in reducing offending, and, worryingly, time out of cells is, as the cabinet secretary said in her statement, impacting on access to services. That last point concerns me the most, and I wonder whether she can elaborate on it.

Moreover, will all victims be properly notified of early release cases? How will that be done? Can it be done in enough time to give victims reassurance that there is no risk to their personal safety?