1. The Post Office scandal involving Horizon is a horrendous miscarriage of justice that has ruined hundreds of lives. Politicians of all parties will rightly reflect on what they should have done sooner. The United Kingdom Government has now acted to overturn the wrongful convictions of innocent victims. In Scotland, however, prosecutions were handled by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, not the Post Office. Has the First Minister established whether passing a legislative consent motion to the proposed UK law will be the fastest way to clear all victims here in Scotland? Will he confirm to Parliament how he will work with the UK Government to overturn those convictions as quickly as possible?

First and foremost, I pay tribute to Alan Bates and the hundreds of other campaigners, sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses—[

Applause

.]—who have worked tirelessly over decades to ensure that they receive justice—justice that they are still waiting for. Of course, it should not have taken the showing of a television drama before action was taken.

Douglas Ross is right that there is a need for reflection on the part of all those involved. The Post Office is a wholly reserved institution that is accountable to UK Government ministers. As he rightly pointed out, the difference is that prosecutions in Scotland have been conducted by the independent Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. I spoke to the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General this morning. The Lord Advocate is willing to provide a briefing for any members of the Scottish Parliament who have an interest in the Crown Office’s handling of the issues.

To answer Douglas Ross’s question directly, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has written to her counterpart in the UK Government to say that we are willing to work with it on the legislation that it is introducing to overturn wrongful convictions. The quickest way to do that would probably be through the legislative consent motion process, but there are a number of complexities to navigate, for the reasons that Douglas Ross has already highlighted. We will, of course, engage on that immediately and urgently, as we have already done with the UK Government. It is absolutely certain that, whether people who have been impacted and affected by the scandal are in Scotland or any other part of the United Kingdom, some have waited far too long for justice. They should not have to wait a moment longer.

I join the First Minister in congratulating Alan Bates and others, as I did in the House of Commons earlier this week. Victims and the public will rightly ask why it has taken so long for this deep injustice to be corrected. Multiple political parties and many individuals should have, and could have, acted sooner. Blame starts with the Post Office, but people are understandably examining what others could have done. Scotland’s Crown Office was made aware of concerns with the Horizon system in 2013—more than 10 years ago. This week, Dr Andrew Tickell, a senior law lecturer at Glasgow Caledonian University, said:

“The revelation that the Crown Office knew of problems is huge.”

He continued:

“Did they stop prosecuting? Did it occur to them that any of their cases before 2013 might now be unsafe because of these uncertainties?”

He added that Scotland was

“just at the beginning” of addressing the miscarriages of justice, while cases in England and Wales—[

Interruption

.]—were

“much, much further down the road”.

I am just quoting a law professor. [

Interruption

.]

Let us hear Mr Ross.

I simply ask the First Minister whether he agrees that the process in Scotland needs to be accelerated.

The First Minister:

First and foremost, we must remember that a public inquiry is under way, but it has already been well established that the inaccurate data and evidence that was presented by the Post Office is at the very heart of the scandal. The Post Office is, and has been, accountable to UK Government ministers over many successive parliamentary terms. That will undoubtedly be a matter for interrogation and questioning at the public inquiry.

I reiterate that the Lord Advocate is willing to meet members of the Scottish Parliament to talk them through what the Crown Office has done here, because it involves the independent functions of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

My understanding is that, in 2013, when Post Office solicitors told the Crown Office about the challenges around the Horizon evidence, it continued to have dialogue with the Post Office but, immediately, at the earliest possible point in time—September 2013—it provided guidance to every Scottish prosecutor to treat cases reported by the Post Office with regard to their individual facts and circumstances and evidence that did not rely on Horizon. It then spent the next couple of years—between 2013 and 2015—in continual dialogue with the Post Office to try to get further detail around the evidential basis.

To conclude, on the position post-2015 with regard to assurances that have been provided, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service issued instructions to all prosecutors in 2015 not to proceed with any Post Office case in which a sufficiency of evidence was dependent on evidence from the Horizon system. Therefore, no case was effectively prosecuted from 2015 in which the evidence was dependent on evidence from the Horizon system.

On where we are in relation to the process with the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission—

The Presiding Officer:

Briefly, please, First Minister.

The First Minister:

—

I am willing to work with the UK Government to look at a process that effectively seeks to overturn any wrongful convictions en masse.

The actions of the Post Office were despicable and probably criminal, but the actions of the Crown Office here in Scotland should trouble us greatly. There was a sudden spike in cases involving people who were among the most trusted in their communities, but the Crown Office proceeded anyway. That was until 2013. Suddenly, it decided not to proceed with a case in the Gorbals.

The First Minister has just articulated that it was in September 2013 when the Crown Office first found out and sent out that information, but it was not. We know that, on 29 January 2013, a procurator fiscal cited “issues with Horizon” as the reason for not proceeding with a case. That was in January 2013, not in September 2013. The convener of the Law Society of Scotland’s criminal law committee, Stuart Munro, said that the procurator fiscal should have gone public. He said:

“The Procurator Fiscal has a legal duty to disclose relevant information to those accused of crimes, and that duty continues even after a trial is concluded. As soon as the Fiscal became aware of concerns about the reliability of Horizon, that should have been disclosed.”

Does the First Minister agree that Scotland’s Crown Office has serious questions to answer?

The First Minister:

I say genuinely and in sincerity to Douglas Ross that the real questions are for the Post Office and are about the information that it provided not just to the Crown Office but to Government ministers. [

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer:

Let us hear the First Minister.

The First Minister:

That is why a public inquiry is so important. Anybody who has questions to answer should co-operate with that public inquiry. Let us not forget that the Post Office is a wholly reserved institution that is directly accountable to UK Government ministers.

There are legitimate questions to ask of the Crown Office, which, of course, operates independently of Government ministers and independently of me, as the First Minister, as it should. There are legitimate questions that individuals and members of the Scottish Parliament will have for the Crown Office. I repeat what the Lord Advocate told me this morning. She is more than happy to provide a briefing to members of the Scottish Parliament who have an interest in the matter.

I will end by reiterating the points that I made at the very beginning. Sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses have waited far too long for justice, and it is incumbent on all of us to ensure that we get them not just access to that justice but access to compensation.

The UK-wide inquiry that the First Minister has mentioned will look at all those issues, and it is right that it continues to scrutinise what happened. However, we must examine the unique circumstances in Scotland, where the Crown Office was responsible for prosecutions of innocent people. If the Crown Office knew of specific problems over a decade ago, that raises serious questions. We do not know what it did—if anything—with that information.

The Horizon Post Office scandal has devastated lives. It is the most appalling miscarriage of justice. Good people were criminalised because of an information technology failure that they had nothing to do with and a cover-up that lasted for years. It is right that no stone is left unturned in seeking answers. The Crown Office in Scotland must be transparent. Prosecutors were aware of issues with the flawed Horizon system more than 10 years ago. We do not need meetings or briefings from the Lord Advocate; we need her here in Parliament to answer questions about the scandal. Does the First Minister agree that the Lord Advocate should urgently come to this Parliament to answer questions?

The First Minister:

I remind Douglas Ross—this is an important point—that, when the Lord Advocate discharges her functions as head of the prosecution service, she does so independently of me. When I spoke to the Lord Advocate this morning, she was more than happy to consider whether to provide a briefing, a ministerial statement or whatever was appropriate. I am certain that the Lord Advocate is listening to these exchanges, and it will, of course, be for her to determine, in her independent function as head of the prosecution service, how she should answer any of those questions.

Let me reiterate the point that, in September 2013, Scottish prosecutors were told to treat cases that were reported by the Post Office in regard to their facts and circumstances and using evidence that did not rely on Horizon—they should be reported in their individual regard. Then, from 2015, no cases were prosecuted where the sufficiency of evidence was dependent on the evidence from the Horizon system. My understanding, again from the conversations that I have had with the Lord Advocate, is that, in its engagement with the Post Office between 2013 and 2015, the Crown Office was assured by the Post Office and its legal representatives that issues that arose with the Horizon system in England did not impact on any live Scottish cases. The Crown Office continued to seek those assurances, as well as taking the action that it did in 2013 and 2015.

I simply end where I started. Time and again, sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses were telling the UK Government and ministers that the Post Office, for which the UK Government and ministers are wholly responsible, was lying; it was simply not telling the truth about the Horizon system. Time and again, the sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses were not listened to. They have waited far too long for justice and far too long for compensation. The Scottish Government will work with the UK Government to ensure that they get access not just to justice but to the compensation that they so rightly deserve.