Chamber and committees

My constituent Rab Thomson is from Cambus, not Cambusbarron, which is in Stirling.

We have heard, consistent with what Russell Findlay has said, that 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 software and there were worrying levels of deliberate and sustained concealment and deception. Given that, does the member think that there should be criminal proceedings against the lawyers and those in the UK Government and the Post Office who carried on that deception?

I am pleased that, at long last, we are legislating to overturn the convictions of those who were wrongly convicted in the Post Office Horizon scandal.

Many months ago, as we have heard, I was contacted by Rab Thomson, a constituent of mine and a former sub-postmaster of Cambus post office. He was one of around 100 Scots who were wrongly convicted because of the scandal. Even a year ago, when the faults with the Horizon system were widely known, Rab was struggling to get his conviction overturned.

On the issue that has now been raised—of the politicisation of where responsibility lies—it should be said that the whole scenario started in Westminster. Concerns were first raised about the system in 1997 with the Government that was new at that point. The issue centres on a body for which the responsibility is reserved entirely to the UK Government. Perhaps members should remember that, because some people seem to want to elide that point.

From the point at which I met Rab, my constituency team and I did what we could to support him—through writing countless letters to relevant organisations, being vocal in the press, and raising parliamentary questions on the issue. Indeed, I met Rab not long before his hearing, and I am very pleased to report that, in January this year, he was among the first wrongly convicted postmasters in Scotland to get their convictions overturned.

As I have said, the postmasters have known about this scandal for decades. The public have known about the scandal for years. I think that Pauline McNeill used the phrase that the dogs in the street knew about the scandal. We therefore have to ask ourselves how it went on for so long.

We now know that a number of people in positions of power knew about it. Had they done things differently, we would not be in this situation. As the Lord Advocate said—and I do not want to attack the Lord Advocate—

I have a final point, which is not a question, because there is no time. I had wanted to ask about how your attitudes may have changed because of Brexit and because of what seems to be a very live discussion about whether the UK should come out of the European convention on human rights. If you want to submit something in writing, that would be really helpful, but we do not have time for an answer.

Thanks for coming along this morning. It is probably true of any new organisation that you are basically asked to justify your existence. It is not unexpected; it is true of most such bodies. Given that Scottish taxpayers will be contributing to the cost of your organisation, it is legitimate that we ask such questions.

In a similar vein to the previous questions, there are things that concern me. First, I ask you to accept my assurance that, if you were a department of the Scottish Government, you would be frequently termed “the Scottish National Party OIM” or “a creature of the Scottish Government” and you would be derided regularly in the media for being such. That is just the nature of politics in Scotland. However, you are a department of the UK Government, and surely some people will raise questions about your independence and the nature of your advice. It is quite dispiriting to hear you say that you do not take sides—not that I am asking you to take my side, but, in some cases, surely there is a side to be taken, presumably on the basis of an open market.

Some of the background in relation to the DRS has been mentioned. If it seems as though the way in which the market operates is at the behest of one party to it, which is how it is perceived by many people, that hobbles that market. The DRS could be termed as being regulatory. Others could say that it is part of the market itself and that markets will have to adapt to climate change. However, that development was stymied because of the interests of one group, according to some people’s interpretations.

The extent to which you may be seen—I am sure wrongly—as being supportive of the UK Government, which you are a department of, perhaps undermines your purpose, as does the lack of powers. I appreciate the point that, if you got such powers, we would be duplicating powers that others already have, such as the CMA. How do you overcome that? That is one question.

Secondly, to go back to Alexander Stewart’s question, there is an appalling lack of proper data on economic and market conditions. That also undermines your powers. Even ONS-produced stuff is based on surveys; it is not based on data. Employment figures are based on surveys. Export figures are completely opaque in the UK. It is not possible to have a proper estimate of what exports go from Scotland or from other parts of the UK. Given how bad it is to hear of and read about the lack of data in England, I ask you to consider a situation whereby a future UK Government decided that it did not like something that a Scottish or Welsh Government did and was able to say, without any evidence, that that would affect the English market. If nobody knows the conditions of the English market, that cannot be tested.

There are three things that might undermine your role. The first is the lack of powers. The second is your attachment to the UK Government as a department of that Government. Presumably, the panel appointments were agreed by the UK Government, but I do not know that. The third is that you are being asked to work in an environment in which you have very poor data, which cannot be conducive to the efficient working of a market economy. What is your response to that?

I understand your points. However, on the point about data and information, you can understand why a business survey would be the appropriate way to test business confidence, for example—that is, people’s attitudes and how they feel. However, there is no information, or very little information, on things such as the level of trade flows for the biggest part of the UK—England—or on many other economic indices. I realise that that is not your job. All that I am asking, notwithstanding the previous concerns that I mentioned, is whether you would be a voice to say to the ONS and others, such as the UK Government and other bodies—you have rightly said that there are many different bodies that collate that information—that, in the 21st century, we should have proper data that we can base decisions on. If we do not start from that basis, we are groping around in the dark.

I will finish with a statement; I am not looking for an answer. It seems that you are talking about reinventing the wheel, although that is not a bad idea. However, if there were to be a proper root and branch look at what economic data is required across the board, the Office for the Internal Market seems to be a key place to say, “We need to have this data in order to tell you whether the internal market is working properly.” If, through convenership or other means, the OIM could be in the forefront of the quest to get proper data, that would be a worthwhile objective. I will leave it at that, convener.

I have a final point, which arises from the convener’s question.

What you have just described sounds like the antithesis of a free market, because it involves introducing a level of uncertainty and bureaucracy before anything can be developed. There seems always to be an assumption that more regulation will be attempted and that we will have to respond to that.

This Parliament was set up with specific tax-raising powers, and it has grown many powers since then. In fact, it has been described, perhaps somewhat foolishly, as the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world. In my opinion, the internal market act completely cuts across that and drives a coach and horses through the devolved powers that we thought we had.

That is a political viewpoint, but, on a non-political basis, would it not be useful for your organisation to come up with ideas about the collision points between what we think our powers are and what the internal market act will allow? That would create an environment in which we would be able to move forward without the bureaucracy that you have just mentioned, and it would free things up because people would know what the boundaries were.

It is not for me to say so—although it might be for the convener or someone else to do so—but I think that Parliament would find it useful to have someone map out what those boundaries are, so that businesses and individuals who want to innovate or to do something different, with less regulation, could act in the knowledge that they could move forward without having to check with every Administration. I suggest that as a possible piece of work for the OIM. I am not looking for an answer.

I will ask my questions in one go, but first I will make a couple of points. On the commissioner, perhaps it is just a bad time to make the suggestion, because the Parliament is thinking about reducing the number of commissioners. I also have to say that appointed accountability is probably too widespread these days, and elected accountability is not widespread enough.

On the point that was made about climate action, I do not really see the issue with reporting the fact that there is an improvement, but that we have failed to meet climate targets; both things are true, and it is important to be true and accurate in such things.

My questions are about the framework in general. I am interested in your views on its purpose and effect. If we ask somebody in the street about the national performance framework, what kind of response would we get? Would it be wrong to ask that, because the framework is meant for a different purpose? If so, what is that purpose? Is it mainly for the Government, non-governmental organisations and others to self-check?

The second point is that, if we take forward whatever is agreed on in terms of the outcomes of international activity, is it essential or desirable that we have a network of overseas bases in which to promulgate the activities, or is that by the by, and can it be done by another means?

Do you know whether there is a directive that says that those offices can only promote brand Scotland and cannot talk about global responsibility? Why are the two antithetical? Perhaps I am missing a directive that says that you can talk about one but not the other.

The Lord Advocate stated that the Post Office and the UK Government, in her words,

“continued to support the Horizon system during the 2013 to 2015 period, and beyond”

and that there were

“worrying levels of deliberate and sustained concealment and deception ... during this period.”

Can the Lord Advocate say whether that might present a liability for the Post Office and the UK Government separately from any agreed compensation scheme? Given that the concealment was “deliberate and sustained” and that it can reasonably be said to have led to the imprisonment, the traumatisation and even the suicide of some of the victims of the disgraceful deception, could it result in criminal proceedings against those who were responsible for that deception?