Chamber and committees

Those are all the question that I have, convener.

You have said that the stoking of this controversy has led to—I forget your exact words—international awareness of the issue, which you said is not helpful to Scotland and its reputation throughout the world. I suggest that those who are responsible for the culture wars could not care less whether that is the case. There is a point to what they do in that regard; they are trying to undermine institutions such as yours.

However, you are partially funded by National Lottery funding. Just as the Scottish Government was not involved in this situation, I take it that the National Lottery was not involved, has not expressed concerns and is not in any way involved in this. Is that right?

I want to say at the start that Dean Ronaldson retires today after more than two decades of working here as a security guard, and I think that it is important that we put in the Official Report our thanks to him for his service over the past couple of decades.

Members: Hear, hear.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect. I would have voted no.

Thanks very much for that. I do not have any further questions. The question maybe caught all three members of the panel off guard but, if you have any further thoughts as to what Scotland could do, that would be interesting.

In relation to the examples of Canada and Germany, for context, I will just say that the Scottish Parliament—the so-called most powerful devolved Parliament in the world—does not have anything like the input that the provinces of Canada have with the federal Government there, or anything like the input that the Länder have in Germany.

On Mike Buckley’s point about asking the UK Government whether Scottish Government representatives could sit in with UK representatives, we actually have the reverse of that just now, in that the UK Government has insisted that, when the Scottish Government talks to other Governments, a UK Government representative must be there. On the issue of Brexit, Scotland, along with Wales and Northern Ireland, was completely excluded from the discussions and negotiations. We have a very highly centralised and controlling unitary state here, which is worth bearing in mind. However, if you have any further thoughts on what Scotland could do, that would be useful.

The point about Ireland is interesting, but I have to say that, if someone enjoys the standard of living in Ireland, which has raced past the standard of living in the UK, why would they want to come to the UK? The opportunities and the standard of living in Ireland are so much better than those in the UK now.

Thanks very much for those interesting responses.

That is really helpful. Pete, did you want to respond?

First, I am looking to hear about the actions that you think might be possible for Scotland specifically to take to address some of the issues that you have raised. I am thinking in particular about Mr Hamilton’s comment that Canadians looked over the border to Michigan to deal with state level—sub-sovereign state level, but state level in that case—actions that could make plain the benefit of working with Canada in relation to the North American free trade agreement, or whatever the term is that Canadians use, which I should know. I should say to Mr Hamilton that I know Nova Scotia very well—I have relatives in Bridgetown and Digby, and spent time in Prince Edward Island at university.

I am thinking about what actions Scotland could take, independent of UK relations. I completely agree with Mr Buckley’s analysis of the prospect of any real, meaningful change, and the references that we have heard to a failed state and the far-right or populist nature of the Conservative Party are illuminating.

The point about trust is crucial: if you enter into trade negotiations in a trade agreement that you later admit you had no intention of standing by, that is, of course, corrosive of trust. However, Michael Heseltine made a statement today, in which he said that there is no prospect of Brexit being discussed by the two major parties during the current election campaign, because it is not in their interests to do so. That, again, limits the ability to have a realistic look at the damage that Brexit has done. I do not have the exact quote in front of me, but he said that it is such an act of self-harm and that it is patently obvious that it has to be addressed if we are to improve things.

One of the most telling points is that, if the UK gets a new Labour Government, the EU will still say, “Well, what happens in the future? If the UK then reverts to another far-right Government, that will unravel things. If there is so little prospect of change, why would our reaching out to change some things be worth the candle?”

There is also the underlying point about the unlikelihood of a major change to the TCA. It is a pretty grim scenario—I should say that I agree on that. It is worth pointing out that it did not have to be that way, even after the vote on Brexit, but a choice was made to go for the hardest possible Brexit and to throw out the single market.

What scope for action, if any, do you believe Scotland would have—whether its companies, organisations, Government or Parliament—to try to ameliorate some of the effects of that situation? We, at least anecdotally, believe that we have a more receptive audience in the EU, because, as a country, we voted against Brexit pretty massively. In addition to what Mr Hamilton has said, what else could Scotland do to ensure that the loss of companies, jobs and exports that we have suffered so far can be turned around?

I will come to Mr Hamilton first, since I mentioned his example.

I realise where responsibility for the compensation scheme lies, but is the cabinet secretary able to say that we will not see a repeat of the current scheme for shortfall, whereby individual postmasters who made up the supposed losses have to fill in a questionnaire of 45 questions, some of which are in five parts and many of which ask for information that only the Post Office could hold? I do not know whether the cabinet secretary is able to offer the assurance that that will not be a feature of the compensation scheme.

On a point of order, convener. My app disconnected. I would have voted no.

I am sorry, but I do not have much time. We have been told that we will not get time back for interventions. I apologise to Michael Marra for that.

I have a direct quote from the Lord Advocate to the Parliament:

“The Post Office, its lawyers and ... UK Government ministers continued to support the Horizon system during ... 2013 to 2015”—

by which time we knew of the issues with the Horizon software. Throughout the scandal, there were

“worrying levels of deliberate and sustained concealment and deception”. —[Official Report, 16 May 2024; c 67.]

It would be good to hear a statement of a general principle that any deception should be the subject of a criminal investigation and, if necessary, criminal action. That should involve not only those with whom we disagree.

My point today is the same as the point that I made last week: given those levels of deliberate concealment and deception, what will it take for the people who are responsible for the scandal in the first place, both in the UK Government and in the Post Office, to face the consequences of their actions? The Post Office is answerable to UK ministers, who are responsible for not taking action when the faults in the Horizon system were first identified. As far as sub-postmasters in Scotland are concerned, the UK Government has been posted missing in all this.

I believe that this is the UK Government’s problem to fix. It would be a rare occasion for me to stand here and ask why the UK legislature is not legislating on Scottish affairs but, on this occasion, given the necessity of speed and, as we heard from Beatrice Wishart, the necessity to mirror the UK bill as closely as possible, why do we not ensure that there is parity of treatment for everyone across the UK who is affected? Why does the UK Government not include Scotland? Why does it include Northern Ireland, which has a different legal system, but not Scotland? That is a pertinent question.

I agree with Pauline McNeill that we should ensure that the Crown Office and others are held accountable. I am perfectly willing to accept that, but it should not be something that delays justice for the victims.

We know that the UK Government has broken the Sewel convention 11 times since 2018, ignoring or overriding the wishes of this Parliament. To me, that begs the question: if Scotland had acted first, would the UK Government have shut that down and told us to wait for the UK-wide legislation, as it has done in a number of other areas? One of those was our deposit return scheme, which was shut down in order for a UK-wide scheme to take place—although that is yet to materialise, unsurprisingly. I for one cannot make sense of the UK Government’s decision making in all this.

I am glad that we are taking action to overturn the wrongful convictions. I could be wrong, and I am willing to be corrected, but I am sure that the Lord Advocate did not say, as has been alleged, that she does not support the idea of generalised pardons, or whatever the relevant terminology is. I am sure that she said that she could not do that within her powers, and that she was not willing to comment on the collective responsibility position of the Scottish Government. She said that she could not do it, not that she would not do it.

What will it take for the UK Government and the Post Office to be held to account here? Why did the UK Government, which is so keen to interfere in Scottish affairs, not include Scotland in the system? I cannot help but conclude that it is because the UK Government would rather play politics—as we are seeing from Murdo Fraser today—with the lives of people whom it has already let down severely, in a cynical attempt to show this Parliament up and avert the blame from itself. The disgraceful way in which the Lord Advocate has been talked about shows a generalised attempt to discredit institutions in Scotland as part of a wider Tory platform. It is a disgrace. In light of the UK Government’s failure to act on behalf of the Scottish victims of this appalling scandal, I support the principles of the proportionate legislation that is now being proposed.

We should bear it in mind that the victims are not unaware of where responsibility lies, of who is trying to get out from underneath it and of who is not willing to take the action that is necessary. There is no logical conclusion other than that the UK Government is playing politics with its actions. I am very pleased that the Scottish Government will take action. It is long overdue. People such as my constituent Rab Thomson have had their convictions overturned already, so I assume from what has been said in the debate that he will now be eligible for the compensation. It would be good to see that formalised for the other victims.

I do not know much about Maggie Chapman’s proposed amendments, but they sound sensible to me, and I hope that they will be given serious consideration by the cabinet secretary and the Government. Let us see whether we can get the bill done as quickly as possible, given the UK Government’s failure to act on behalf of the victims of the scandal.