Chamber and committees

The total expenditure in the UK is around £6 billion, more than a third of which is raised from sources other than the licence fee. What is the equivalent figure for Scotland for money raised from sources other than the licence fee?

I will make one last point. The table that we have says that the spend as a percentage of the licence fee collected is 86 per cent. You referred to that figure. You also mentioned the fixed costs for nation-based organisations, about which the committee heard previously when it asked about Wales. If the nations are smaller, the spend gets to be larger. Given that there is a premium, if you like, to deliver services in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, the 86 per cent figure seems quite small. It is less than 100 per cent of the licence fee collected and includes the premium that you have to pay. Is that a matter of concern and are you looking to address it?

I understand what the cabinet secretary is saying but, from my point of view, the idea of trust, consistency and honesty on the part of Creative Scotland is an issue.

My second point relates to the cabinet secretary’s point about new sources of finance. I raised the issue of innovation, which I have not seen much evidence of, except for the V&A in Dundee. I was assured that it would get back in touch with ideas, and some of those have come back in, to be fair—I have yet to read them.

I know that time is very short so, rather than ask a question about that, I will very cheekily ask the question that I asked the BBC earlier. Does the Scottish Government support the allocation of the status of crown jewels to the carrying of live Scottish national football matches in Scotland?

I expect that it is, but, for the committee, in trying to come to an idea about the fairness of the apportionment of funds, it is an important figure. If it is not possible for you to give it just now, it would be useful to have it subsequently.

In my experience, there has never been a time when there has been such widespread concern about the output of the BBC and other broadcasters. Increasing numbers of people, including young people, are not paying their licence fee. It is not just young people—I am thinking about my mum. That is bound to have an impact. Part of the issue is related to what those people perceive to be the nature of the BBC’s current affairs output. This week, we have seen reference to the fact that the BBC’s “The Nine” programme could have as few as 200 viewers. I do not know whether that is true, but it has certainly been reported on social media. There are real concerns about that. In recent times, the director general of the BBC attended a meeting of Conservative MPs at Westminster. Can we, in this Parliament, expect a similar kind of courtesy from the director general? Is it possible to have direct communication with him to raise some of those concerns?

It was not so much about the committee. The meeting that happened at Westminster was for a particular political party. Is that courtesy extended to all parties?

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?

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 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.]

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.