Jackson Carlaw
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“Presiding Officer, I am here under false pretences. I understood that that was to be Christine Grahame’s final speech, and yet I now gather that there are to be more final speeches than Frank Sinatra had farewell concerts.”
“The corporate body’s proceedings during Covid were often interrupted by guest appearances from Mr Smokey, the much-loved cat in Christine Grahame’s ownership—maybe “ownership” is too bold a word to use for a cat. I am less of a cat person than a dog person.”
“We have found, to our surprise, that, from time to time, perhaps because of our lifetime experience, we have the same view on issues that come before the SPCB, sometimes to the disquiet of the other members.”
“In my experience, such cross-party friendship has been Christine Grahame’s example as a parliamentarian. I have watched Christine Grahame speak in all sorts of debates where she has had to go and research the topic. I have watched her bring thoughtful contributions to the chamber.”
“All of us who are of a certain age probably remember Harold Macmillan lamenting the fact that, when the Russians first put a monkey into space, all the great powers of the world were devastated and concerned about what it meant that Russia was in space whereas all that the people who wrote to Harold Macmillan were concerned about was what…”
“As the only man on a corporate body dominated by women, I ask Mr Whitfield whether he is confirming that no man would find himself in such a happy position in a future Parliament. Martin Whitfield: I am grateful for the member’s careful wording as to how he feels that his time on the corporate body has gone.”
The complete record
Every one of 234 lines we hold for Jackson Carlaw, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 5.
“In my experience, such cross-party friendship has been Christine Grahame’s example as a parliamentarian. I have watched Christine Grahame speak in all sorts of debates where she has had to go and research the topic. I have watched her bring thoughtful contributions to the chamber. I have watched her challenge members of her own party just as much as she has challenged those in the Opposition parties. She has done all that indefatigably, and I doubt that she will be in any sort of retirement for very long. I expect that we will hear far more from her, and I look forward to doing so. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I was going to call Stuart McMillan, but I cannot see him for the time being, so I call Carol Mochan. 11:09”
“The corporate body’s proceedings during Covid were often interrupted by guest appearances from Mr Smokey, the much-loved cat in Christine Grahame’s ownership—maybe “ownership” is too bold a word to use for a cat. I am less of a cat person than a dog person. I remember a very wise woman telling me that dogs are very transparent, playful and charming, just like men, whereas cats are more like women in that they are less of all those three things. Mr Smokey was a great passion for Christine. I saw a card the other day that said, “If cats could text, they wouldn’t.” However, I know that Christine Grahame has a great passion for animals of all kinds. I recall her, Margo MacDonald and Mary Scanlon forming a cross-party friendship in that regard in the Queensberry house lounge, over not a bottle of whisky but a bottle of wine—each.”
“All of us who are of a certain age probably remember Harold Macmillan lamenting the fact that, when the Russians first put a monkey into space, all the great powers of the world were devastated and concerned about what it meant that Russia was in space whereas all that the people who wrote to Harold Macmillan were concerned about was what happened to the monkey. Similarly, I remember Mrs Thatcher saying, when she was dealing with high unemployment, that people did not write to her about that but about lead weights in swans. As I said a moment ago, personal concern for animals has been much closer to the public’s heart than many other issues.”
“We have found, to our surprise, that, from time to time, perhaps because of our lifetime experience, we have the same view on issues that come before the SPCB, sometimes to the disquiet of the other members. I am no better at technology than Christine Grahame is, so, unfortunately, it is always down to Maggie Chapman to plug Christine Grahame in and to try to get her up to speed with the agenda, which she usually manages about halfway through the meeting. Christine Grahame has brought to the chamber this fantastic personal concern for animal welfare, which is one of those issues that sits far higher up in the public’s consciousness and on the public’s agenda than is often the case with issues on the political agenda.”
“Presiding Officer, I am here under false pretences. I understood that that was to be Christine Grahame’s final speech, and yet I now gather that there are to be more final speeches than Frank Sinatra had farewell concerts. I am very happy to contribute to today’s debate, not just because Christine Grahame and I are the oldest members of our respective parties—I will not say that we both have one foot in the grave, but we are nearer to that than to having one foot at primary school, or to being like Ross Greer, whose best school days still lie ahead. It is a pleasure to contribute in the final debate to be led by Christine Grahame, which is on an issue that she is passionate about. I have come to know Christine Grahame particularly well over the past five years, as we have served together on the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body.”
“I move, That the Parliament notes the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s 4th Report, 2026 (Session 6), Standing Order Rule changes - Related to Gender Sensitive Audit recommendations on Parliamentary Bureau Membership, Election of Presiding Officer/Deputy Presiding Officers and SPCB Membership (SP Paper 978), and agrees that the changes to Standing Orders set out in Annex A of the report be made with effect from 11 May 2026. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question on the motion will also be put at decision time. Standing Order Rule Changes (Elected Conveners)”
“As the only man on a corporate body dominated by women, I ask Mr Whitfield whether he is confirming that no man would find himself in such a happy position in a future Parliament. Martin Whitfield: I am grateful for the member’s careful wording as to how he feels that his time on the corporate body has gone. He is correct, because the recommendations strengthen the requirement for gender balance to be considered at the nomination stage. That is important. We believe that making those changes will enhance the consideration of, and the process for, appointment or election to those four key roles within the Parliament and make an important contribution to delivering a truly gender-sensitive Parliament.”
“That is not the answer. To move forward today is to recognise a single truth: we all have a right to life but we do not have a duty to live whatever the circumstance before us. I do not know whether I would take advantage of the opportunity, but I believe that it is wrong, in this day and age, to deny individuals that right. 21:35”
“I return to Ross Greer and to the reason why I enjoyed his speech, which was because he set out, in technical detail, the actual safeguards introduced by Liam McArthur during the progress of the bill and because he explained that we would need commencement orders to pass before the bill could actually be enacted. That is the answer for Jackie Baillie and others who say that they do not know about the bill. If members do not like it, they do not have to vote for the commencement orders in that final analysis. It is the voices of the terminally ill that are missing from the chamber tonight. I ask members to look around and answer this: if your neighbour said to you, “I’m dying in excruciating pain,” would you say, “Well, I’ll do something about palliative care, years from now,” or, “I’m very sorry, you’ll have to endure”?”
“Today, I had quite a profound experience. I went into a Costa in my constituency before I came in here. There was a group of guys and a couple of women who talk about things every early morning. The Costa was very busy. I asked them what they would do if they were me and they all put up their hand in support, but that was not what was profound. I looked up and all around the Costa, other hands went up as well. We should not forget, although it cannot be the only thing that governs our decision tonight, that the vast majority of the people of Scotland understand what is before us and support the progression of the bill.”
“Over the years that I have been here, whether we were debating the ban on smoking, the groundbreaking legislation on improving the lot of people who require wheelchairs, the introduction of free personal care, same-sex marriage—I remember arguments about coercion being made at that time—or travel to the United States for women suffering as a result of transvaginal mesh, I have seen that when this Parliament works together, it is at its best. All those things, I have to accept, would probably not have advanced the social life of Scotland had this Parliament not been here to do it. In this debate, I am reminded that each of us is equal. We are not loyal to any manifesto or any party leader tonight, however well intentioned their interventions might be. Each of us is an equal voice in the proceedings before us.”
“I stand here as someone, members will understand, who was not always terribly sure about this place, but I have come to have a profound respect for it. In fact, I have cherished its potential in the 19 years that I have been here, but not always its output. I remember when I first came in and looked around the chamber walls, I wondered, “What are these things?” I thought that they were bottles of whisky. I was told that that is the silent majority of Scotland looking at us as we debate the issues before us.”
“I pay particular tribute, as others have, to Liam McArthur, and not only to him, but to his team, going back to Jack, George and the other people who have helped since. The former of all those, when my head of office left in 2022, told me that he was adopting me as my unofficial carer, which was both charming and deeply alarming. They have worked incredibly hard to process the enormous volume of correspondence and work that Liam McArthur has had to progress during this session of Parliament. None could have done so with the charm, dignity, ease and restraint with which he has. His conduct in progressing the bill is, as others have said, a remarkable tribute to him and to this Parliament. He has done a fabulous job.”
“I supported Margo MacDonald’s bill and Patrick Harvie’s bill on the matter. I eventually abstained on Margo’s bill. She told me to abstain for reasons that I will not repeat here, because I might get arrested. I have found today that I come to this debate with no personal story to match some of the most profound and inspiring stories that I have heard across the chamber. Any personal story that I would bring would be quite feeble by comparison. I have learned two things to my surprise in the debate. I will say this once and never again: I could have listened to Ross Greer’s speech again, and secondly, I might have preferred Krystle Ross to be the member of Parliament rather than her husband. That might be a sentiment that others would agree with this evening, having had time to reflect on it.”
“He also said something that I never forgot: “Other politicians may wish they occupied the desk. Other politicians might think it would all have been better if they had been in charge. Other politicians might lambast and say, ‘That was ridiculous,’ but, for the Prime Minister, the First Minister and the woman in the hot seat, they are making life-and-death decisions. Some of them represent a burden they carry with them for the rest of their lives. They do not walk away from it. It is something they feel, because they had to take decisions—very brave decisions—that had fundamental consequences. That is a real sense of duty.” I say to Susan: Jeane made a difference. She had a sense of duty, and this Parliament—and everyone in it—should be grateful for her work, the job that she did and the legacy that she leaves behind. [Applause.] 14:12”
“I remember one constituent, Lorna Farrell, who went to the steps that Sylvester Stallone ran up in the “Rocky” movie. She got out of her wheelchair, free of mesh, staggered up those steps and stood at the top, thanks to Jeane. Jeane made a difference, and there are women all over Scotland, and their families, who will be forever grateful for what she did. Let me finish with this final reflection. Decades ago, I sat at a private dinner for the then Prime Minister during the height of the Falklands war. I was sitting next to Alec Douglas-Home and asked him what it was like to lead in a crisis. He said: “Well, the first thing is the duty of others to offer constructive support.” I try to remember that and I tried to provide that support when the Covid pandemic fell.”
“She did it with tremendous effect because she was supremely well briefed and very committed to the job that she did—never more so, in my experience, than in the way in which she engaged directly with the women who were affected by transvaginal mesh. The Transvaginal Mesh Removal (Cost Reimbursement) (Scotland) Bill was Jeane’s bill, which Humza Yousaf was to take into legislation at the start of this session of Parliament. It provided for the transport of women to the United States, so that Dr Veronikis in Missouri could surgically remove the mesh that, in many cases, they had been told had already been removed. That opportunity was not extended to women anywhere else in the United Kingdom. It was a bill that Jeane embraced and took forward.”
“She brought to the job considerable experience of the outside world, which the Parliament recognised and appreciated. People will know that I used to do those welcome speeches for ministers, and I must say that I relished the prospect. I enjoy good parliamentary performance and I used to love how Jeane would sit—very still and quiet. She did not allow herself to be noised up. There would be these—probably from me—very theatrical performances from elsewhere in the chamber, with members thinking that they were lambasting her. She would stand up quietly at the end and would always begin by saying, “So…”, and then she would eviscerate every argument that those members had made. I quite often looked across just to exchange a twinkle in the eye, because I knew what she had done.”
“I associate myself with and commend the First Minister’s remarks. On behalf of myself and the Conservative Party, I send our deepest condolences to Susan and all of Jeane’s family, friends and colleagues, and her wider party. I am touched that Susan asked me to say a few words this afternoon about Jeane. I apologise if these words, in part, repeat some of the remarks that I made in the Parliament shortly after we heard of her passing. It fell to me to welcome Jeane into Government when she first became a minister, which was a happy duty. I look back on what I said then and notice that Jeane’s mother’s tribute to her daughter was that she had a voice “that could sell coal”. Coal was not what she went on to sell, but she always spoke with tremendous authority and vigour, which was deeply impressive.”
“That was more riveting than you might have predicted. The question on the motion will be put at decision time. 17:05 Meeting suspended. 17:06 On resuming— Decision Time”
“This does not apply to any salary payable to a member of the Parliament in their capacity as the First Minister, a Scottish Minister, a junior Scottish Minister, the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor General for Scotland, the Presiding Officer or a Deputy Presiding Officer. (2B) If remuneration is also payable to a member of the Parliament in respect of the same period under regulations made under section 11(1) of the Local Governance (Scotland) Act 2004 then the amount of salary payable to the member shall be reduced by the amount specified as payable to a councillor (who is not designated the Leader of the Council, the Civic Head or a senior councillor) by those regulations made under section 11(1) of the 2004 Act.” (c) in paragraph 2(1), after “sub-paragraph (2)” add “, (2A) and (2B)”. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Carlaw.”
“In the hope that members are listening to this and will be able to answer questions on it in call and repeat, I move, That the Parliament, in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 81(1), 81(5)(b) and 83(5) of the Scotland Act 1998 resolves that, with effect from the day of the poll at the first general election for membership of the Parliament following the day on which this Resolution is approved, the Scottish Parliament Salaries Scheme is amended as follows— (a) for paragraph 2(2) substitute— “For any period during which a salary is payable to a member of the Parliament pursuant to a resolution of the House of Lords relating to the remuneration of members of that House, the yearly rate of the salary payable by virtue of this Scheme to that member for that period shall be reduced by two-thirds.” (b) after paragraph 2(2) insert— “(2A) No salary shall be paid to a member of the Parliament in respect of any period in which the member is or was also a member of the House of Commons.”
“On behalf of the corporate body, it falls to me to move this thrilling and compelling motion to update the Scottish Parliament salaries scheme. The amendments to the scheme implement provisions of three Scottish statutory instruments made under the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Act 2025 that will prevent an MSP from simultaneously holding office as a member of the House of Commons, a member of the House of Lords or a local councillor. The provisions that are implemented in changes to the scheme will ensure that any member who holds such a dual mandate cannot be remunerated for both roles simultaneously.”
“I should say that we have written to Professor Sir Lewis Ritchie to draw his attention to Alison Britton’s recommendations— which were fully accepted by the Government at the time, and which we were told every future group would incorporate into its working practices—and to ask him to ensure that they absolutely are embedded. This is one of the great scandals of our time and the biggest scandal of this Parliament. If there is going to be a patient oversight group, it has to be able to operate with the full confidence of everybody who is employed in it. We must know that it will not be some sort of chimera of obfuscation, but that it will actually be able to ensure that this does not happen again and that people know why it did happen. 15:36”
“Eventually, there was a commissioned report by Professor Alison Britton, which made 46 recommendations on how such groups should be structured and conducted in the future—because that oversight group on mesh led to the resignation of the very woman who had been invited to participate in it, because she had the experience of the issue to do so. I ask the cabinet secretary whether, in fact, every one of Professor Alison Britton’s recommendations on how such groups should operate has been embedded in the operational criteria that are being used to establish the working practices of that group.”
“That is not something that the Government volunteered to do; it is something that the Government decided to do in response. I sometimes worry about how that sort of thing comes about. I wonder whether the cabinet secretary went back to his office and said, “What the heck do I do now?” and some civil servant said, “Well, minister, you could set up an oversight group. That would be quite a nice way to deal with things. It shows you as a man of action, and it also allows you, in the future, whenever any inquiries are made about the subject, to say, ‘Well, we now have an oversight group and we need to let it duly respond.’” Why am I slightly cynical about that? I return to the mesh. As a result of the mesh scandal, we set up a patient safety review group. What was the outcome of that?”
“It might have been Humza Yousaf who took through a bill on the issue at the start of this session, but it was Jeane Freeman who accepted the case that there was an argument to allow women to be sent to the United States, to Dr Veronikis, to have mesh removed that they had been told by the health service in this country was no longer even present in their system. That is a debt of gratitude that I will not forget, and it is a debt of gratitude that the women and their families will carry for the rest of their lives. I hope that Susan knows that Jeane made a difference— because she made a difference. [Applause.] I want to speak about the oversight group, which was a suggestion from the cabinet secretary in response to a defeat on a Labour Party motion in the previous week.”
“It fell to me, on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives, to welcome Jeane Freeman to her ministerial responsibilities in this place in 2016—a happy duty at the time. I note that I reflected then that she brought considerable lifetime experience to Government, but I also noted a comment from her mother, who said that Jeane had a voice that could sell coal. She may not have had to sell coal in here, but she commanded the respect of the Parliament through the detailed and conscientious way in which she approached her responsibilities, and never more so than in the way in which she brought her attention to focus on the women who had suffered from mesh.”
“My officials have met UK officials on a number of occasions to try to move the issue forward and, as I said in my earlier response, along with my colleagues from Wales and Northern Ireland, I met Minister Ahmed to try to push it forward. The three nations are certainly working together on the issue. Surgeries Carried out Abroad 8.”
“The minister referred to the second anniversary of the Hughes report. Embedded in the Hughes report was the redress scheme that was recommended in respect of mesh women, as well as that for the condition that we have just heard about. There was cross-party support across all the parties in the Parliament—we stood united as a Parliament. I hope that the minister will exercise some influence and that our Labour colleagues will find some spine to stand up to the United Kingdom Government and say that this must not be another U-turn. Jenni Minto: I agree with what Jackson Carlaw has said. I also reflect on the important work that he has done to ensure that women who are living with the consequences of mesh implants remain at the forefront of all our thoughts.”
“Colin Wilkinson of the Scottish Licensed Trade Association has warned that “There has never been so much … uncertainty” about the future of the licenced trade. Those voices are not isolated but united, consistent and unequivocal. They are telling ministers— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Kerr, you will need to bring your remarks to a close; you are over time. Stephen Kerr: They are telling ministers that what is being proposed will not work. I will conclude on time to please you, Presiding Officer. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you very much. I call Keith Brown. 15:31”
“Leon Thompson of UK Hospitality Scotland has warned that asking pubs and restaurants to find thousands of pounds more in rates within weeks bears “no relation” to the trading environment that they are operating in. Stephen Montgomery of the Scottish Hospitality Group has described the business rates system as “broken”, “inflation-busting” and “unaffordable” for hospitality, and has explicitly called for the revaluation to be paused. I could not understand Clare Adamson’s speech—that is not a first time for me—when she said that ministers cannot stop this. Of course ministers can stop it. The Northern Ireland Executive minister—the Sinn Féin minister to whom Murdo Fraser referred—has stopped it. Let us get real. Those are not isolated voices.”
“Does Mr Kerr agree that we must identify the individual businesses that are being affected by this, such as the Cartvale pub and restaurant in my constituency, which was once derelict and was taken over by a family that has built it up into a superb local business that employs 51 people whose jobs are now at risk? That is more jobs at risk than members of the SNP who turned up for their Eastwood Burns supper. Is that not a calamity for those employees and a disaster for the country? Stephen Kerr: Jackson Carlaw has summed it up beautifully. That is exactly it. The sector is not asking for sympathy but pleading for its survival, yet the SNP Government’s response—which we have heard again today—is just more spineless tinkering at the edges. The sector is crystal clear.”
“It falls to us now, as the testimony about those who were exterminated in the Holocaust becomes not first- hand testimony or second-hand testimony but historical event, to confront antisemitism. It relies on us and those who follow us, the fantastic ambassadors that we have in Scotland for the Holocaust Educational Trust and all those who are determined to ensure that we confront and fight that legacy of antisemitism. As I found in Poland when I attended the European Jewish Association conference in November, which was the reason why I then went to Auschwitz, it is not just here—it is across all Europe. Antisemitism is on the rise and it has to be confronted; otherwise, “never again” will not be never again—“never again” will be now, and that will be our responsibility. We have to stop it ever happening again. 13:03”
“How extraordinary it was, on that beautiful day in November, when I was standing at the end of the railway track in Auschwitz, where the trains came, to imagine, as I have seen in the photographs, young children jumping off the train after that perishingly brutal journey, thinking that they had arrived at their destination, that this was it and that they were going to live a better life, only to be marched literally 40 yards either way to the two more recently built crematoria at the top of Auschwitz to be exterminated there and then. There is no answer but that of the testimony that Kenny Gibson has just given in his very powerful speech—that antisemitism has been rooted in society not for decades, not for centuries, but really since Judaism was founded as a religion.”
“I visited Auschwitz again just last November—this time in beautiful sunshine, only to realise that evil itself takes place under the sun, not just on the dark, desolate days that are typically portrayed when one watches movies of the Holocaust—and there stood the most extraordinary apparatus of industrialised murder. More than a million people—not just Jews but homosexuals, Gypsies and goodness knows how many others—were brutally exterminated in that camp.”
“Despite the beauty, still, of the Tiergarten, I am afraid that there was nothing about Berlin that offered any answers at all. It was a city still devastated, and the political quarter was still undeveloped. Talk then of reunification seemed far-fetched, but in fact reunification was not that far away. I went to Vienna, a city about which Angus Robertson has written a remarkable book, but it was very reluctant to address its support for Hitler. The Imperial hotel, where Hitler addressed the masses, is curiously reluctant to admit to playing any part in celebrating the Anschluss at that time or to its complicity in the war that took place. I found no answers there. I thought that perhaps if I travelled to Auschwitz, which I did 15 years ago, there would be something that would reveal what had happened.”
“Two years later, in 1976, Sir Jeremy Isaacs’s landmark series on ITV, “The World at War”, was the first to use graphic footage of what had happened and brought the full consequence of the Holocaust to the attention of a world that had perhaps known but not fully addressed it. I thought that I would try to find answers myself. Forty-two years ago, I travelled along the corridor from West Germany to Berlin, thinking that in Berlin I would perhaps find some answer to what had happened. I stood outside Spandau prison, in which the only remaining architect of the Holocaust, Rudolf Hess, was still a prisoner. The buildings next door, which are all now demolished, held some of the execution chambers where Hitler hung with piano wire not just those who stood against him but Jews who were uncovered in Berlin in the later stages of the war.”
“In the first book of his seminal autobiographical quartet, “Growing up in the Gorbals”, the accomplished psychologist and economist Ralph Glasser reflected that, growing up, he tended to hide the fact that he was Jewish in view of the prejudice prevailing in the society of his day, which “burdened every step of our lives” and resulted in the need “to bury it beneath some protective colouring, so that we might go our private ways like everybody else”. Growing up in the 1970s among Scotland’s largest Jewish community as I did, I have reflected before on the impact of Dr Jacob Bronowski, in his landmark series “The Ascent of Man”, standing ankle deep in the detritus of Auschwitz—not somewhere that it was possible to routinely visit in those days—and looking at the prospect that his relatives were among the ashes at his feet.”
“When the final report is published, the Government will consider its findings with the seriousness that they demand. We will consider those recommendations in full when they are published. We have fully complied with the independent public inquiry and we have supplied all information to it, as should be expected. If further information or evidence is required by the independent inquiry, we will, of course, comply with that. The families who were affected by these events deserve clarity, accountability and lasting change, and I reaffirm my commitment to that. 17:00”
“Policy measures are in place to support that, including the NHS Scotland whistleblowing policy, set against the national whistleblowing standards and independent national whistleblowing officer role, which is delivered by the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman. There is an independent advice line and dedicated whistleblowing champions in each health board to ensure that staff are encouraged and supported to speak up. Last week, I met the Patient Safety Commissioner, and, next week, I will meet the independent national whistleblowing officer to discuss relevant matters and demonstrate my support for those important roles and the ways in which they contribute to public service. I give the Parliament an absolute assurance about my expectation and the Government’s expectation regarding the culture that governs our national health service.”
“In addition, there was a focused inspection of the emergency department in July 2024 as part of the wider NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde emergency department review, which resulted in a number of actions that have also been addressed. Healthcare Improvement Scotland subsequently confirmed that it was reassured by the response to that review by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, which assurance has continued through a series of further inspections. Let me also be clear that staff who raise concerns, often in extremely difficult circumstances, must be protected and heard. I absolutely agree with that. I have set that out clearly. Strong whistleblowing arrangements are essential to ensuring that, when concerns arise, they lead to action.”
“That is of the utmost importance to the Scottish Government, and it remains our priority. To the questions from Gillian Mackay and other colleagues about the public’s confidence that the hospital is safe, I can give assurance for two reasons. The first is the evidence that was led by the independent witness Mr Poplett. Secondly, I sought assurances in that regard and asked Healthcare Improvement Scotland in March last year to conduct a further review of the progress that is being made by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde in meeting the health and safety requirements and recommendations that were set out in the action plan from the Queen Elizabeth university hospital assurance of infection prevention and control inspection of June 2022.”
“As counsel and expert witnesses have confirmed, the hospital operates under strengthened oversight, with significant improvements in safety systems and clinical governance. Brian Whittle: Has a full safety audit of the hospital been carried out since the scandal erupted? Neil Gray: Again, these matters are before the inquiry. Evidence has been sought and led, and it would be wrong to come to conclusions. Jackie Baillie: Will the cabinet secretary give way? Brian Whittle rose— Neil Gray: Bear with me—I am setting out the situation as to the current safety of the hospital. Delivering safe, effective and person-centred care to our patients in a clean and well-maintained environment— Anas Sarwar: Will the cabinet secretary give way? Neil Gray: Let me finish my point.”
“The powers that have been entrusted to Lord Brodie under the Inquiries Act 2005 protect this process from any direction or influence by ministers or by the Parliament. That independence is not a technicality; it is what allows families to have confidence that every decision, every document and every witness is assessed on the evidence. We have provided the inquiry with all evidence that is relevant to its terms of reference. Although our submissions have been substantial, it must be recognised that they alone do not provide the full picture of events. The totality of the information from all core participants is before Lord Brodie, who must now be given the space to deliberate and to establish what happened, why it happened and what must change.”
“Their testimony has been brave, often harrowing, and it is because of them that the issues are finally receiving full and independent scrutiny. I have reached out to those patients and families through their legal representatives and offered them all the opportunity to meet me to share their experiences and concerns. The Scottish ministers recognise all those who are adversely impacted by the matters that the inquiry is examining. Recognising that harm is precisely why the Government established a statutory independent, judge-led public inquiry to uncover the full truth and ensure that lessons are learned. It is vital that we reaffirm a principle at the heart of this discussion—the independence of the inquiry.”
“That is just a ridiculous assertion. Pressure is not something that is applied amorphously; pressure is applied by an individual. If the First Minister can say that it was not anybody in his Government, he must know who it was. If he has not asked who it was, he should have done so, and the public and this Parliament should be told. I think that we are absolutely right to focus on this debate today and to support the motion before Parliament. 16:54 Neil Gray: As the debate draws to a close, I will return to talking about those affected by the matters that are before the inquiry. Families who lost loved ones, patients who endured harm and staff who spoke up, despite personal risk, have shown courage that deserves our deepest respect.”
“I will conclude with a thought that has rested with me since his contribution at First Minister’s questions. In response to Russell Findlay, when asked whether anybody in the Government had exerted pressure, the First Minister said that the short answer was no. The only way that he could know that—the only way that he could be certain of that, and the only way in which he could stand before Parliament and tell us that—is if he had asked the people who said that pressure had been applied who it was that had applied the pressure. The First Minister could not know just by standing before us that no official, minister or member of his party had sought to apply pressure. He could only know it if he knows who it was that applied the pressure. Subsequently, we are being told that the pressure was applied by the health board on itself.”
“SNP members opposed the public inquiry and supported Jeane Freeman, who, when asked whether there should be a public inquiry, said: “My straightforward answer is the one that I have given before: no, I do not agree”,—[Official Report, 11 September 2019; c 33.] and that she did not believe that a public inquiry would add to our understanding of this issue. So spare me the attempts to hide behind a public inquiry now, in the face of the evidence that we have before us. I do not think that there is any issue before this Parliament that is more horrendous than the one that we have experienced at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital. When we look at the contributions of the parents as they react to the evidence that has unfolded, we really should, as a Parliament, be totally ashamed. I see that the First Minister has entered the chamber.”
“First, on the radio, she said that she did not know about a boy’s death or the investigation that took place. Then, she suddenly decided that she knew about the boy’s death, but did not know about the investigation. The First Minister tried to tell us that those were reconcilable contradictions and that, in her view, the health secretary took the appropriate action. This afternoon, I have heard SNP members repeatedly talk about the sanctity of the public inquiry being held by Lord Brodie. One would think that they had called for it, but they did not.”