Chamber and committees

I am happy to offer this advice for no fee whatsoever. [Laughter.] A sure-fire way to increase the BBC’s viewership figures is to address the absurd situation that we have in Scotland whereby we cannot see free-to-air international football matches, especially competitive ones, that involve our national team but can see matches from other countries. Would the BBC support the designation of international Scottish football matches as part of what are called the crown jewels?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I want to raise a point of order in relation to First Minister’s question time today.

During his questioning, Douglas Ross mentioned a case of people from Fife—a postmistress, Mary, and her daughter Myra. At the start of his question, he talked about the obligation—as he feels it to be—on the Lord Advocate to come forward with a process for quashing the convictions, and he finished his question with the demand that convictions be overturned. The example that he gave was a harrowing one. It involved Mary, who was wrongly suspended from her job in the Auchtermuchty post office, with a devastating impact on her family—her daughter Myra, in particular. He mentioned that Mary died before the Horizon scandal came to light and, as he said, she died without knowing or its being proved that she was right. That is a tragedy and a harrowing story.

Douglas Ross then made demands for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to overturn those wrongful convictions, and he also said that there had been no prosecution or conviction in the case. Surely it is important, when the Parliament discusses such issues and decides on them, that we know where accountability lies. In that case, accountability clearly lies with the Post Office, whose egregious actions caused distress to that family and many others, and with United Kingdom ministers, but not with the Crown Office.

Does the Presiding Officer agree that we should be very clear about where accountability lies when we make such demands in Parliament?

Are there early indications of the impact of the peak fares removal pilot on train users in Mid Scotland and Fife? What are the most frequented trains in the region? What savings have patrons of the routes made as a result of the action that the Scottish National Party led Government has taken?

I thank the Lord Advocate for her statement and for her support for me in my efforts to represent my constituent Robert Thomson, who is a former postmaster of Cambus post office, in his quest for justice, which is, at long last, getting the attention that it deserves.

I disassociate myself from the stomach-churning attempts by those on the Tory front bench to protect their friends in the UK Government by trying to blame the Crown Office.

One of the more striking things about the scandal has been how difficult it has been for victims to claim compensation for what is a very obvious miscarriage of justice. That was confirmed in the UK Parliament this morning, with a solicitor for many of the affected sub-postmasters, Neil Hudgell, revealing that only three people of around 900 wrongly prosecuted had been fully compensated so far.

Does the Lord Advocate agree that the 2006 scrapping of the discretionary compensation scheme for victims of miscarriages of justice under Labour and the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, which further limited the compensation available to victims of miscarriages of justice under the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition, represent a continual weakening of the UK’s ability to respond to miscarriages of justice by successive UK Governments? [Interruption.] I know that that is uncomfortable for the Conservatives. [Interruption.]

Does the Lord Advocate agree that the scandal has shown that the UK’s system for responding to miscarriages of justice is not fit for purpose?

I am interested in Creative Scotland’s relationship with the Scottish Government. First, I endorse the points that Mark Ruskell made about Creative Stirling, which has also contacted me, as a local MSP.

Just before Christmas, I attended an event at which the person who was there from Creative Scotland felt able to launch an attack on the Scottish Government about funding. That was given added spice for me, as I was sitting next to the culture minister at the time. In addition, the cut of £6.6 million was referred to—you might remember the apocalyptic press release about that which went out just before the committee’s previous round-table meeting.

In contrast, we hear now, and we heard in the earlier session this morning, that the fact that that money has been reinstated is pretty meaningless. In fact, someone in the earlier session said that it will not feel like “new money”, although I think that it probably will do to those parts of the Scottish budget that are being cut. I highlight the downplaying of that, and the playing up of the potential cut.

In relation to the Scottish Government, I have two questions. In response to Mr Bibby just now, you talked about the detail of the budget. It would be interesting to know what details you fear you might not get before the budget. Obviously there is a lot of discussion before the budget, and I would imagine that it will fill in most of the blanks, but maybe not. Maybe you fear that some parts of it will not be laid out for you.

Secondly, I still cannot get my head around the national lottery stuff. I have seen it referred to as a shortfall in reserves. I would like a wee explainer of the Scottish Government’s responsibilities in reinstating any shortfall, or whether the shortfall has been caused by the Scottish Government—perhaps that is the point that is being made. Perhaps you can tell me, in a way that I will understand, what is going on there regarding the relationship between national lottery funding and the Scottish Government’s obligations in that regard. In addition, I would like to hear what detail you fear that you might not get prior to the budget.

I am glad that we got the joyous, optimistic and positive version of things from Shona McCarthy—I am not sure that I could have withstood a negative one.

There are a couple of things that I—as a new member of the committee, perhaps—do not have a grasp of but which have not yet been mentioned. First of all, I understand the point that what we are really talking about is the country’s long-term cultural impoverishment, given the changes that have been made and the reductions in choice and diversity that have been going on for some time. As has been pointed out, the Government understands where the sector is coming from and the pressures that it faces, and that is really important. However, apart from Anne Lyden’s contribution, I do not get any sense that the sector understands where the Government itself is coming from. Anne mentioned the financial crash in 2008 and 2011 as the key years when things changed—that is, when austerity came in.

In our last evidence session on this issue, I mentioned that we had no comparison with other devolved Administrations—the comparisons that we were given were not relevant. The dialogue has to be genuine, because if you do not know where the other side is coming from, you will not be as effective as you might be.

Maybe I am getting this wrong, though—perhaps there is a recognition of where the Government is in the discussions that people have with it. Energy costs, staff costs and inflation—most of which the Scottish Government cannot control—have been mentioned, but I am looking for a bit of reassurance that those things are acknowledged when you have discussions.

I would also note something that has happened a few times in my experience as a committee member. I think that the convener mentioned innovation and entrepreneurialism, but there has been virtually no other mention of them. I appreciate that they will apply to different extents in different parts of the sector, but surely, given the gravity of the public finances, they should be focused on much more eagerly. I think that somebody said that they had been tried, and I think that Mr Bibby mentioned wishful thinking, but to be honest, I do not know where we can get to if we do not have wishful thinking. Are entrepreneurialism, innovation and new sources of funding for those who are able to pursue such things being taken more seriously? We have not heard a great deal about that. Does anybody want to have a go at that question?

I see that an increase of about £12 million in the funding for “Other Arts” is proposed for this year.

Could you explain the point about the national lottery shortfall?

It is not really about this year’s budget, therefore, but how it is going to play out in the next few years.

I am happy to hear from others. If anyone wants to submit any written evidence on the efforts that individual sectors are making in respect of innovative and entrepreneurial funding, it would be really helpful. I do not know whether anyone else wants to come in on those points.