1. I begin by putting on record the best wishes of, I am sure, the whole chamber and people across Scotland to His Majesty the King and to the Duchess of Rothesay. We wish them both a speedy recovery to good health. [

Applause

.]

Last week, in response to the Horizon scandal, the First Minister said:

“I think that the idea of almost a mass exoneration is one that is very worthy of consideration.”

In a letter to the Prime Minister just eight days ago, he said:

“it is right that normal processes for appeals are set aside”.

However, in a statement this week, the Lord Advocate, his Government’s top legal adviser, said:

“in Scotland, there is an established route of appeal in circumstances such as this.”—[

Official Report

, 16 January 2024; c 14.]

Humza Yousaf has said that there should be a blanket exoneration, but the Lord Advocate believes that the current process for appeals should not change, with each case being considered individually. Will the First Minister tell not just the Parliament but, crucially, all the victims of the scandal what the position of his Government is?

I associate myself with Douglas Ross’s remarks and wish both King Charles and the Duchess of Rothesay a speedy recovery.

On the Post Office issue, I begin by paying tribute once again not only to Alan Bates but to all the hundreds of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses right across the United Kingdom who should not have had to wait for an ITV drama in order to get justice and compensation. However, it is important that the United Kingdom Government has acted.

Douglas Ross is right—I wrote to the Prime Minister. I should say that I have received his response, which is a positive one, to the effect that he is willing to work on a UK-wide basis. I will be happy to release that response, but I think that we are waiting for number 10 to confirm that it is happy for us to do so. The detail says that the UK Government is willing to work with the Scottish Government to consider a UK-wide approach to mass exoneration for people who have been wrongfully convicted.

I listened carefully to what the Lord Advocate had to say, both in her statement and in response to questions. She made the point that there is currently an appeals process through the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to investigate miscarriages of justice. Let me be clear, though, so that Douglas Ross has no misunderstanding. We support the UK Government’s considering legislation for mass exoneration for people who have been wrongfully convicted. We have written to the UK Government and have had a positive response back. We hope that the legislation can apply across the UK.

That does not clear up the case in Scotland.

The First Minister:

It does.

The First Minister says that it does, but the UK legislation will apply in England and Wales, whereas the issue is devolved in Scotland. We have his top legal officer, who sits in the Scottish Government’s Cabinet, saying something quite different from what the First Minister is saying. Let me quote again from the Lord Advocate’s statement on Tuesday:

“That is an important process, because not every case involving Horizon evidence will be a miscarriage of justice, and each case must be considered carefully”.—[

Official Report

, 16 January 2024; c 14.]

That is the Lord Advocate’s current position: a refusal to change the process and accelerate the system because there might be some guilty people. Surely it is better to accept the tiny possibility that a guilty person will have their conviction overturned than to allow dozens of innocent postmasters to live with the stain of guilt for a minute longer.

What discussions has the First Minister had with the Lord Advocate since her statement on Tuesday? Does he agree that the convictions must be quashed as quickly as possible?

The First Minister:

The Lord Advocate and I are due to speak again tomorrow, I believe. When the Lord Advocate spoke in the chamber, she was speaking as the independent head of the prosecution service. That important part of her function is distinct from her position when she provides legal advice as a member of this Government.

It is still my preference that UK legislation be applied UK-wide through a legislative consent motion. That would be the preferable route, although there are complexities to work through in that.

Douglas Ross is presenting this as a binary choice, which is not correct. The best position for all of us is to see, urgently, the mass exoneration of those who were wrongfully convicted. However, when it comes to those whose conviction was and is sound, nobody necessarily wants those convictions to be overturned and those people to be able to apply for compensation. If we can get to the position of having the best of both worlds, that would be the best position to get to. That is why we are willing to work with the UK Government, which presumably also does not want sound convictions to be overturned if that can be avoided. We will work with the UK Government in that respect.

However, let us not forget what we are dealing with. I am afraid that this is a scandal that was born in Westminster. The Post Office is wholly reserved, and UK Government ministers are wholly responsible for it. I accept that it lied to UK Government ministers—

Briefly, First Minister.

The First Minister:

— but they clearly did not interrogate the Post Office strongly enough. Therefore, the public inquiry is important, and I urge the UK Government to fully co-operate with it.

The Crown Office is wholly devolved in Scotland, which is why the situation here is very different.

The Post Office could not prosecute those individuals here—it was the Crown Office that did so.

One of those who was prosecuted was Judith Smith. She pled guilty in 2009 at Selkirk sheriff court to a charge of fraud, after thousands of pounds disappeared. Judith’s lawyer told us that the Crown Office displayed a worrying lack of scepticism about the Post Office’s case, particularly as there was no trace of the money anywhere. Judith was even asked whether she had blown it all on a lavish holiday or whether she had a gambling problem. Her conviction was finally quashed just last week. However, Judith’s lawyer said that the Crown Office should have launched a review of all past Post Office prosecutions the minute that it became aware of the Horizon problem in 2013. It did not, and it took a further two years for prosecutors to dismiss on-going cases that relied on Horizon evidence.

Will the First Minister explain why prosecutions in Scotland continued for two years after the Crown Office became aware of concerns with Horizon? Does the First Minister agree with the Scottish Conservatives’ call for the Lord Advocate at the time, Frank Mulholland, to come to the Parliament to answer questions on the scandal?

The First Minister:

Let us be clear that it took an ITV drama to get the UK Government to take action, even though we have been told by hundreds of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses up and down the country that they were lied to. Let us not forget that that is what spurred the UK Government into action, not the desperate pleas of sub-postmasters up and down the country.

Let us go back to the point that the Lord Advocate made very clearly in the chamber, which was that the Crown Office was, in her words, “misled” and given false reassurances by the UK Post Office time and again.

There are many institutions that, given the harrowing testimonies, including the one that Douglas Ross just articulated, will be answerable for what they did and the action that they took. I fully expect—I am certain that it will be the case—that the Crown Office will fully co-operate with the public inquiry that is under way.

On why the Crown Office chose to prosecute cases after 2013, the Lord Advocate laid out the fact that there was guidance to prosecutors in 2013 in relation to Horizon cases, and, in 2015, the Crown Office stopped prosecuting cases that were sufficiently dependent on Horizon data.

The current Lord Advocate is responsible and answerable for the Crown. She has already answered questions about what took place in 2013, and she has said that, if MSPs want a further opportunity to question her, she will make herself available.

My question was about one of her predecessors. I think that it is crucial that the Parliament hear from Frank Mulholland. It would be interesting to know whether the First Minister supports that call from the Scottish Conservatives.

All of this matters here in Holyrood, because the Crown Office is a devolved institution.

The procedure by which these convictions can be quashed will be set by this Government and this Parliament. However, the process that the Lord Advocate set out could mean that that takes far longer in Scotland than it should.

Myra Philp worked with her mum, Mary, at the post office in Auchtermuchty in 2001. At 7 o’clock one morning, Post Office auditors burst through the door and demanded the keys to the shop. Mary, a former policewoman, was suspended, but she immediately suspected that Horizon was to blame.

The Post Office, on the other hand, blamed Mary’s teenage grandchildren. Auditors accused them of breaking in during the night, overriding the time lock and taking the money. Mary was not prosecuted, but she lost her business. She died in 2018, the year before Alan Bates forced the Post Office to admit that Horizon was desperately flawed. Myra told us:

“My mum died not knowing she was right.”

The Lord Advocate is head of the independent judiciary in Scotland, but she is also the chief legal adviser to the Scottish Government and the Cabinet. Does the First Minister accept that, if we follow the position that the Lord Advocate laid out to the Scottish Parliament on her preferred process, the process will take far too long for the postmasters who have been wrongly convicted and that some could die before their names are cleared?

The First Minister:

I will give clarity once again, not just to Douglas Ross but to Mary’s family and to all the other sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses across Scotland. Last week, the UK Government announced that it was looking to introduce legislation in the UK Parliament in order for there to be mass exonerations for wrongful convictions.

I have written to the Prime Minister to say that we would welcome that process. Not only that, but I said, as the First Minister, that we would be willing to work with the UK Government so that the legislation has a UK-wide effect. That could be done through an LCM. I say to Douglas Ross that, if it is not possible, for whatever reason, for the UK Government to bring forward an LCM, we are already working on contingencies around separate Scottish legislation if that is required. I hope that it is not—if an LCM is a possibility, that would be the easiest and quickest route.

As the First Minister of Scotland, I will decide what legislative route is used in this Parliament to exonerate those who were wrongfully convicted. I say once again, regarding the harrowing testimony that Douglas Ross gave in relation to what Mary had to suffer—I have no doubt that her family still feel the consequences—that that happened on the UK Government’s watch, because of a Post Office that is wholly reserved to the UK Government.

Time after time after time, UK Government ministers from UK-based parties did not believe sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses, such as Mary and others, who were being harassed by the Post Office. They have waited far too long for justice, so I give them absolute confirmation and assurance that we will work with the UK Government, and whomever else we need to work with, to ensure that they do not have to wait a single day longer—

The Presiding Officer:

Briefly, First Minister.

The First Minister:

—not just for justice but for access to compensation.