Chamber and committees

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.

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

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.

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.

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 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?

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.