Chamber and committees

As we have heard throughout the unfolding of the narrative, injustices were inflicted not just on sub-postmasters themselves but on their families, co-workers and the communities that they served. The bill as drafted recognises that to some extent, but its inclusion of not only those who carried on a Post Office business or had a contract of employment but all who worked in a post office at the relevant time is important. However, I believe that it is necessary to go further to ensure that the legislation includes others who may have been wrongly convicted but did not themselves work in a post office.

The amendments on close relatives address situations such as that which Pauline McNeill referred to in her question to the cabinet secretary last week. That was

“a case in which a sub-postmaster was accused of defrauding £35,000, but, to save his mother from jail, her son pled guilty to taking cash that we now know did not go missing at all, and he was subsequently convicted.”—[Official Report, 15 May 2024; c 22.]

Without the amendments in the group, the son’s conviction would stand. That is not justice.

The amendments about co-accused would ensure that the provisions of the bill would apply to a situation in which two or more people were prosecuted and convicted together of an offence covered by the legislation, but not all of them were working in a post office at the time. Without the amendments, the effect of the bill would be to quash the conviction of the post office worker but leave their co-accused a convicted criminal under the law. Again, that is not fair.

Because of those injustices, it is really important that we include those amendments.

I move amendment 2.

Tracey Francis, what are your views on what “good” looks like?

In some ways, my question follows on from your conversation with Colin Beattie. You have spoken in different ways about the need to change culture and we have heard in previous sessions about people being afraid because they do not know what it will mean to have a disabled young person in their employment or in their education setting and how to support them. One way to overcome that fear and address some of the culture change issues—although it does not tackle them completely—is to show good examples. Could you talk through some clear examples of when it all works? What does “good” look like? You have talked about vocational profiling and about multi-agency approaches. When it works, what does that mean for the people providing the support, for the families and for the young people themselves? Perhaps Anne-Marie Sturrock could start.

Yes, of course.

Is the transition for somebody out of college the same for employment or wherever they are going on to?

It is not common.

And having the resources to deliver those services?

That all comes as a package.

You were speaking about that transition from school to college and aligning the curriculum, which might strike terror into some college lecturers. Could you say a little bit more about what you mean when you talk about aligning the curriculum? What would that mean for people who have to deliver that? Are you talking about redesigning entire programmes and that kind of thing?

That is really helpful. Thank you. I will leave it there.

In that second example, there is the issue of making sure that the support is there consistently, because, say the bus timetable changed or something, the young person might need to go through that process again, but it should not be a defeating moment.