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 2 of 5.
“Transparency, listening to patients and telling people what went on was at the heart of Professor Alison Britton’s recommendations. What a travesty and a sham it is to argue that those recommendations have been implemented when we know that the health board in Glasgow lied, lied and lied again to patients for years, rather than answering or holding itself to account for the scandal that it brought about. Paul Sweeney: The member is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that truth does not care about power or ideology but is perpetual? I believe that the truth is that the person who applied pressure to put schedule and cost over safety was guilty of a criminal act. Does he agree? Jackson Carlaw: I do, and I want to go further. In 2019, at First Minister’s questions, I pointed to inconsistencies in Jeane Freeman’s statement.”
“In January 2019, when Jeane Freeman announced that, following the deaths of patients, there would be a review of the Queen Elizabeth university hospital’s building, design, commissioning and construction, as well as other related issues and how they contributed to effective infection control, I stood here as acting leader of my party and put this question to the First Minister: “Last year, Professor Alison Britton published her findings on the way in which all future national health service reviews should be conducted and made 46 key recommendations. Will the First Minister confirm that the review into the Queen Elizabeth university hospital will meet those tests?”—[Official Report, 24 January 2019; c 10.] The First Minister confirmed that it would.”
“Way before this scandal, when I spoke on health between 2007 and 2016, I pointed to the increasing culture of cover-up within the health service that resulted from the practice of having patients sign non-disclosure agreements and accept compensation without proper accountability ever being traced or individuals being held to account for their actions. That has led to the very scandal that we find ourselves facing now.”
“Party politics aside, I thank him for the unrelenting focus that he has continued to bring to the issue throughout this session. I say to Nicola Sturgeon that, if she can find the time to write a memoir about her time in Government, she should consider it her duty to find the time to contribute to our consideration of these matters and to answer for one of the greatest scandals of that time in Government. I will pick up a point that Paul Sweeney made. I think that culture absolutely underpins all of this.”
“The Queen Elizabeth university hospital is my hospital. I have been treated there. My 94-year-old mother’s life has been saved there several times. Constituents of mine have been born in that hospital. Some have been treated there. Some have died. However, anybody who dies in that hospital should die because of the underlying conditions that led them there and not because of the failings in the hospital itself. I come to the debate today with, frankly, a cold fury. If mesh was the scandal of the previous parliamentary session, I agree entirely with what Anas Sarwar said in the devastating and forensic attack with which he opened the debate: the way that this matter has been handled has been the health scandal of this parliamentary session.”
“Some matters are self-evident—they are certainly obvious to me, and they should be obvious to colleagues across the chamber. 16:25”
“Where is the accountability for that failure? It is simply not good enough to say that we acknowledge that things might sometimes go wrong. Where is the root-cause analysis? Where is the escalation? Why does the cabinet secretary not have a chart on the wall of his office with daily and hourly updates in red pen to show what is being done to fix the problem? Where is the system of accountability? We constantly have the circular feedback loop— the doom loop—involving health boards, integration joint boards, ministers and parliamentarians, but none of it ever results in consequences. It is in that respect that we need to question our role in public life. I hope that parliamentarians will think about that, regardless of the inquiry and what it concludes.”
“To simply be dismissed and told that what we are doing as parliamentarians in seeking to hold the Government to account in that regard is ultra vires is appalling to me. Can members of this Parliament not show some degree of pride in their work and in what they are meant to be doing? That is important to me and I hope that it is important to others. Such complex projects involve many ethical dilemmas, but we must never compromise on standards or rush to meet deadlines by skipping quality or safety checks. There is an issue even with basic routine maintenance. When one of my colleagues in Glasgow, Councillor George Redmond, was admitted to the Glasgow royal infirmary, even the showers were not working. Basic infection control and prevention of disease measures are failing on an on-going basis in the city today.”
“Where is the accountability for that failure? It is no good just acknowledging it. Where is the system of accountability? Where is the deterrence so that such perverse behaviours do not occur again? As parliamentarians, and even as members of the public, how can we have confidence that that will not happen again? Whether we are talking about a ferry that does not work or a hospital that causes death, myriad other symptoms exist across the public sector in Scotland that are causes for concern and that are raised routinely in this Parliament. We must understand what the underlying culture is and how we can address it. The protection and preservation of human life in our country should be our overriding concern.”
“There was a huge sign above one of the sheds that said, “Lives depend on us doing our job right.” That is an important point to remember. In project management, there is a moral obligation to be accountable and honest, because the protection of human life is at the core of any big project, whether in healthcare, construction, aerospace or shipbuilding. Those are high-stakes projects, and there is a total responsibility to act with integrity at all levels in management and commissioning. If any perverse incentive exists to ensure that safety is overridden, it must be nipped in the bud, but that simply did not happen in this case. We know that there were other expedient factors at play. We know that pressure existed. We know that the final product was not safe and that it caused harm to the public. It caused unnecessary death.”
“Is an illustration of that not the number of insurance claims that have been settled in the health service? When I first entered Parliament, there were very few, but now there are tens of millions. There is a rush to offer compensation, but there is no rush for those who were responsible for the problem in the first place to be held accountable. Is that not part of the culture to which Mr Sweeney refers? Paul Sweeney: The member makes a very good point. To curtail and suppress things rather than holding people accountable, getting to the root cause of the problem and avoiding unnecessary consequences is a symptom of a wider disease. In many cases, those consequences include lives being lost unnecessarily. I come from a shipbuilding background and I distinctly remember my first week at the shipyard.”
“Shona Robison: I welcome Jackson Carlaw’s welcome for the initiative. Initially, it is a one-year commitment, but it will depend on how that goes and the progress on the roll-out—[Shona Robison has corrected this contribution. See end of report.] However, we are determined that this summer will be an opportunity for every young person who wants to learn to swim to take up the opportunity. Who knows? Out of that, we may see other young people following in Duncan Scott’s footsteps. He sets a fantastic example. The infrastructure of pools is an issue primarily, but not exclusively, for local government. We have supported the local government settlement over a number of years to enable local government to provide the services that local people require.”
“A fortnight ago, the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee brought a debate to the chamber with all-party support on the importance of swimming, given the background of Scotland having the highest accidental death by drowning rate of any part of the United Kingdom. I join Fulton MacGregor in welcoming the commitment that all children should be able to enjoy swimming lessons, but I ask for clarification. Is that a one- year commitment or a long-term commitment? Secondly, in the face of Scotland’s golden athlete Duncan Scott commenting on the catastrophic reduction in the infrastructure of swimming pools across Scotland, is there anything in the budget that will halt or reverse that decline? A commitment to swimming lessons requires pools for people to be trained to swim in.”
“In the Government’s responses to petitions, it often indicates that such-and-such action that has been requested is a matter for the relevant authorities. However, those authorities do not operate in a funding vacuum, nor do they operate in a policy vacuum. In writing to the committee, COSLA highlighted that there have been real- terms cuts to core revenue and capital funding for councils, as well as increasingly ring-fenced Scottish Government funding. Because of that, cuts have fallen disproportionately on non- statutory services including swimming pools and wider culture and leisure services. We all know that from our local constituency experience. COSLA suggests that “Councils require fair and flexible funding in order to protect these vital community services and facilities.””
“In a period of less than a year after the petition was lodged, five swimming pools were closed with no prospect of them reopening. The committee heard about a swimming pool whose operating costs rose by 107 per cent in three years, but costs are rising—at varying degrees—across the board. The high operating costs of swimming pools prompt pool operators to pass the costs on to consumers, which makes swimming less affordable. In many cases, nearly 90 per cent of the income that is generated and used to run swimming pools and sports facilities comes from the customers, with the other 10 per cent or so coming from the local authority. We heard that, historically, the level of local authority funding was a lot higher but it has inevitably been forced down due to pressures on funding over the years.”
“I also commend the petitioner for the passion and determination with which she has pursued the aims of her petition for the past three years, with the support of members of this Parliament such as Liz Smith and others, and for the precise and matter-of-fact evidence that she provided to the committee on behalf of Scottish Swimming. Alongside all the evidence that we heard during the round tables, that persuaded the committee of the need to make—here it comes—a bigger splash and bring the matter to the attention of the whole Parliament. It was at that point in preparing my speech that I got echoes of the Morecambe and Wise “play what I wrote”. The issue at the core of the petition is that increased operating costs, squeezed budgets and ageing venues are putting pools across Scotland at risk of closure.”
“I acknowledge everyone else who provided evidence in the round tables—John Lunn, chief executive of Scottish Swimming; Derek McGown, a coach at the East Kilbride amateur swimming club; Abi Thomson, a young volunteer programme champion at Scottish Swimming; Dianne Breen, coached programmes manager at Sport Aberdeen; Kirsty Doig, director of the Darcey Sunshine Project; Jillian Gibson, policy manager for sport and physical activity at the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities; and Ben Lamb, chief executive of West Lothian Leisure, which is also known as Xcite. I thank them all.”
“However, the more evidence the committee heard in respect of this being an island nation and, as I will touch on later, Scotland having the highest rate of deaths from drowning of any component of the United Kingdom, the more we felt that the importance of swimming cannot be overstated.”
“However, the following are also his words: “when I look back on my career as an athlete and at some of the pools that have been part of that journey, I know that Alloa Leisure Bowl and Bo’ness swimming pool have both now closed ... I wonder where the next athletes are going to come from.”—[Official Report, Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, 23 April 2025; c 6, 5.] Duncan spoke to the committee during our round-table discussions on 25 April 2025, which focused on the petition that was lodged by Helen Plank. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to help to keep our swimming pools and leisure centres open by providing financial investment for pools. I know that we are always calling for financial investment in this, that and the next thing.”
“If anyone has a gong that they want to bang, they can count up and see whether they can earn some cash during the course of my contribution—I challenge them to come up with the appropriate figure. Let me dive right in and speak to the motion in my name. “There is a real ethos of swimming in Scotland, and we are starting to take over the British Swimming team.” Those are the words of swimmer Duncan Scott OBE, who was Scotland’s most decorated athlete at the Paris Olympics in 2024 and is a remarkably impressive ambassador for his sport. Had he decided to give up swimming, he could crawl into a career in politics, I think, and make the argument for swimming still more effective.”
“How exciting it is, on the first day back, to be able to bring this debate to the chamber. I begin by introducing petition PE2018, which was lodged by Helen Plank, on behalf of Scottish Swimming, and by saying that the committee was absolutely unanimous and united in the focus that we brought to bear on the petition and in bringing it before Parliament today. I thank the clerks for all the hard work that they have done, and particularly for their assistance with my speaking notes. I apologise now for the fact that the speech sounds a little bit like the play what Ernie Wise wrote, in that it contains just about every possible hidden reference to water and to swimming.”
“I give Mr Carlaw the assurance that the issue is very much on my desk, that I am looking at it personally and that I will be taking steps to address those issues. I discussed the security of the Jewish community, and of places of worship and education, with the chief constable yesterday. I was assured last night by members of the Jewish community that, sadly, in the aftermath of the Manchester attack and again, sadly, in the aftermath of the Bondi beach attack, Police Scotland, which already has very strong connections with the Jewish community, increased that engagement as a consequence, as I would have expected to be the case. Specifically in relation to Calderwood Lodge primary school, I assure Mr Carlaw of my direct personal attention in relation to that question. We may well have more to say about that in due course.”
“[Applause.] The First Minister: I pay tribute to Jackson Carlaw for the force with which he expresses the thoughts and aspirations of the community that he has faithfully represented in this Parliament and for the sentiments that he has shared with us from Wentworth. It is powerful testimony that Parliament has to hear and take account of. I am very familiar with the circumstances at Calderwood Lodge primary school, and I have been looking closely at some of the issues in relation to the security and safety of the school. Our schools have to be safe places in all circumstances, and that must apply to Calderwood Lodge primary school. I am aware of some issues around security, which I am personally addressing.”
“They are adults now but were children at the time of the Dunblane tragedy, and it is burned fiercely on their memory. Can the First Minister offer an assurance that he will ensure that Police Scotland looks not just at places of worship but at this incredible, unique school—the only joint Jewish-Catholic campus anywhere in the world—so that Jewish, Muslim and Catholic children who live, work and learn together there can continue to do so safely and so that their parents can know that they will receive the full support of this Parliament and the community in Scotland to ensure that they can?”
“As it happens, my former parliamentary aide, Euan Waddell, is now working in Australia and lives in the Wentworth constituency, which is at the heart of where this ghastly attack took place. He describes Wentworth as the Eastwood of Sydney. It is a community with a strong Jewish population, which is very familiar to him, to me and to my own Jewish community in Eastwood. It is precisely for that reason that the atmosphere among the Jewish community has changed dramatically. Australia, Sydney and Wentworth were meant to be safe in the way that Scotland, Glasgow and Eastwood are meant to be safe, but, if it can happen there, they now fear that it will happen here. Yesterday, I was contacted by parents at Calderwood Lodge primary school.”
“Were somebody to travel from Edinburgh up to Aberdeen, paying a boundary charge for the privilege of passing through every council area, stay overnight and then pay a boundary charge for passing through every area on the way back, it would be ridiculously complicated and a burden on that motorist. The proposal would place a burden on motorists across Scotland and it would damage both the tourist infrastructure across the city and the Scottish economy.”
“It is potentially a devastating and damaging additional charge on my constituents and a devastating and damaging experience for businesses across the city, which could undermine the wellbeing and healthcare of my constituents and those in neighbouring local authorities. I ask the cabinet secretary not to brush aside the proposal on this occasion—or, if she is going to do that, to use some nice, choice words that I can use in my election literature, as I have no doubt that that would assist me—but to consider seriously whether the long-term implications of all other local authorities following suit might be a matter of national concern.”
“When we abolished the tolls on the bridge across to Skye, SNP members were bursting with enthusiasm for the fact that they had abolished tolls. Here we are coming full circle with the SNP administration in Glasgow proposing tolls and Fiona Hyslop washing her hands of the matter—despite section 51 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, which she could enforce, saying that it can take place only with her express permission. I am pleased to say that Labour members have been supportive of the motion. Even SNP MSPs have endorsed it. I am not surprised to see Mr Harvie glowering at me as he usually does. Ross Greer, who is the only West Scotland MSP who is totally unconcerned for the wellbeing of the West Scotland region, will no doubt think that it is a wonderful thing. It is not.”
“When that hospital was confirmed by Nicola Sturgeon following a decision by Malcolm Chisholm in a previous session of the Parliament, people who lived in East Renfrewshire, who could easily access the Victoria hospital, expressed concerns that accessing the Queen Elizabeth hospital was a much harder journey to undertake by public transport. To this day, that remains the case and, therefore, many such people have to access it by using their cars. They will all be charged. People coming across from the north of the city will be charged for getting to hospital. That, surely, is the antithesis of the SNP’s proudest boast when it first came into office in the Parliament, which was that it was abolishing tolls.”
“That was his reason for objecting to the plan but he also said: “We are very concerned about the possible displacement of business out of Glasgow.” The west of Scotland development manager for the Federation of Small Businesses said: “we would urge extreme caution when it comes to considering” introducing tolls. In addition to the proposed congestion charge, there is a proposed charge for using the Clyde tunnel, which is used by many people to get to the Queen Elizabeth university hospital to attend urgent appointments.”
“That is, a driver who is resident in the Borders or Dumfries and Galloway would be charged for entering Glasgow when they crossed into the city from one of the neighbouring local authorities. Drivers who are resident in one of the other 31 local authority areas would be charged for every car journey to Glasgow, including for work, healthcare, education or social and family reasons, while Glasgow residents would be exempt. What have people had to say about that prospective charge? The chief executive of Glasgow Chamber of Commerce said: “We cannot support a city-wide congestion charge until public transport improvements have been made”.”
“It is asking constituents not only from my local authority but from all the neighbouring ones to flash their digital passports as they seek to cross the city boundary into Glasgow. People who attend healthcare appointments at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital, people who go to work in the city, people who hope to bring some sort of income into the city and, in my case, people who just cross the road or go up the street to Sainsbury’s to get their shopping would have to pay a boundary charge for the privilege of doing so. People in East Renfrewshire, Renfrewshire, West Dunbartonshire, North Lanarkshire and South Lanarkshire are likely to be the most heavily impacted. However, the charge would apply to every person in Scotland who does not live in Glasgow when they cross the council boundary.”
“Perhaps that was her intention—I do not know. If it was, I will be eternally grateful. However, I would far rather that she called out the reckless disregard for the damage that her colleagues in Scottish National Party-led Glasgow City Council could be wreaking upon the public by pursuing the policy. I would also rather that she gave proper consideration to the wider, long-term consequences that might follow as a result of that action were other councils to follow suit. What the council has proposed is not, as some people have now got used to, a low-emission zone charge for heavy, fuel-inefficient vehicles. It is talking about an at-city-boundary congestion charge.”
“I thank the members who have been generous enough to lend their support to my motion. Can I say too how delighted I am to see Fiona Hyslop here to respond to the motion. I hope that it will give her the opportunity to redeem herself after the casual way in which she brushed aside my inquiry a few weeks ago, which is the direct reason for my bringing this matter to the chamber for debate today. When I asked her about the matter, she said words to the effect that the Tories were in favour of localism, this was nothing to do with her and she washed her hands of the whole affair. I hope that that will not be her attitude today. In some ways, perhaps I should hope that that will be her attitude because it has so offended all my constituents in Eastwood that it has done wonders for my re-election prospects next May.”
“It seems to me that, through that method and through discussion of the outcomes and recommendations that arise from it, Parliament could find a solution to the issues that have been raised without recourse to recall legislation and all the confusions and unforeseen consequences—now and in the future—that it might bring about. 16:11”
“Jackson Carlaw: I recognise that, but no social media campaign or campaign in this chamber can kill one of our members of Parliament. I think that those distinct cases are quite different. In one case, somebody has lost their life—through natural causes, one hopes. In the other, somebody could lose their seat as a result of a campaign. I will finish by saying that, not so long ago, Parliament agreed to a motion requiring the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body to put in place a process that will result in an investigation of the regime that might apply in a future Parliament. We have invited Rosemary Agnew, who is a highly respected individual, to undertake that inquiry.”
“In 2015, people had only had iPads for two or three years—the whole way that people operate through digital and social media was in its infancy. Now, it is quite easy to see how someone could mobilise a malicious campaign across a constituency or a region that is designed to politically unsettle an individual for a calculated outcome. I think that we should be very wary of that. Alex Cole-Hamilton: Does the member recognise that, in effect, the disparity that he describes already exists? If a regional member were, sadly, to pass away, they would be replaced by the next person on the list, whereas, were a constituency MSP to die, a by-election would ensue. Exactly the scenario that he describes would take place in that eventuality.”
“If there was a campaign outwith this Parliament, we could find that there was pressure, within whatever protocols we had established, to push for a finding that the sanction threshold of 14 days or 10 sitting days had been breached, because people would see the political advantage that could accrue from a recall potentially changing the complexion of the Parliament in one circumstance, but not in the other. Moreover, I do not think that a lot of money would be spent on the recall of a regional member. On the idea of there being a yes or no vote in the regional context, it is very difficult to see how anybody would survive in that environment, and then we would just reset by resorting to the original list. All of that does not seem to me to be fair, principled or reasonable, and I think that it is open to manipulation.”
“Through the recall of a regional member, the political complexion of this chamber could not be changed, except that, as I understand it, if a regional member defected to another party, the political complexion of the chamber would be reinstated to how the electorate originally intended it. My point is that, through the recall mechanism, a Government could fall on the basis of the recall of a constituency member, but not on the basis of the recall of a regional member. If we had a Parliament of the unreasonable, or an external campaign— Alex Cole-Hamilton: Will the member take an intervention? Jackson Carlaw: I will in a moment.”
“Like Mr Harvie, I have reservations about whether we can frame legislation that, understanding the narrow issue that it seeks to address, does not bring with it unforeseen consequences. I want to talk about the variation in equality between regional and first-past-the-post members. I have always understood the principle to be that, by whichever means someone is elected, once they become a member of this Parliament, their status is no different from that of any other member. We are all equal members of the Scottish Parliament. However, the recall proposal is quite different. Through the recall of a constituency member, the political complexion of this chamber could be changed.”
“Much longer sentences can be given for breaches of the law that I might think are relatively minor, and shorter sentences can be given for breaches that I think are considerably more important. Therefore, moving the test around is quite a dangerous principle. Patrick Harvie: I am grateful to Jackson Carlaw for giving way, and I am not at all uncomfortable with his comments. Does he think that the bill ought to specify particular types of criminal offence that should be a trigger, rather than there being a threshold that is based on the length of sentence? Jackson Carlaw: The reality of my position is such that my welcome of the bill is, in the end, superficial.”
“I was amused at Mr Cole-Hamilton’s line that members should not be disbarred for switching parties. If that had been the case historically, his would have been the only party that abolished itself—when the Liberal Party merged with the Social Democratic Party, every Liberal would have had to resign from elected office everywhere in the country. Therefore, I can understand why he would be nervous about such a provision in particular. I very much enjoyed the principles outlined by Richard Leonard. I thought that they really were magnificent tests by which anything should be judged. I know that this will cause him great offence and disharmony, but I enjoyed and agreed with a great deal of what Patrick Harvie had to say as well, particularly in relation to prison sentences. He is absolutely right that crimes can be fashionable.”
“I have not come with a prepared speech, because I wanted to contribute to the evolving argument in the chamber. As I start, I reflect that we hope that, were any of the provisions to make their way into legislation, they would not have to be used, even decades from now. We should be anticipating that we are making legislation on the basis that we will not want to use it at a later date. We might consider ourselves reasonable. I started out in life as a thrusting, hard-line Thatcherite and I am now a mellow, cuddly Thatcherite—if that is not an oxymoron. However, I ask members to consider that, years from now, this might not be a Parliament of the reasonable, and whatever we put in place ought to be something that cannot be abused or manipulated in a party-political way. There have been some excellent speeches.”
“For the purposes of stage 1, the committee recommends that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the bill. 15:30”
“Sue Webber: I am recalling the committee’s discussion on the use of language and how we were careful not to use the word “excuse” in any of the recommendations in our report. Would the convener comment on that? Martin Whitfield: Absolutely, because looking at the data and the reasons for the excuse are challenging, because it presupposes a need to explain an absence. I welcome Mr Simpson’s offer to reconsider those elements in the bill. To conclude, fundamental issues need to be addressed if the bill is to deliver its intended purpose. I welcome the Scottish Government’s confirmation that it will support members across the chamber in that regard. I also appreciate and understand that Mr Simpson has indicated that he will look at a number of those issues.”
“As a representative of the committee that has the responsibility for standing orders, I point out that we need to take account of what we do at the moment. It is right to say that a not insignificant number of members have been able to fully contribute to proceedings of this Parliament remotely, which would not have been possible without the hybrid arrangements that we now have. The committee had concerns about the process for deciding what constituted a reasonable explanation for absence. The proposed process gives rise to serious questions about privacy. It would seem inappropriate to make the committee the vehicle for investigating, and for making a decision on, a member’s explanation. The committee is not persuaded by that proposal. We would invite Mr Simpson— Sue Webber: Will the member give way? Martin Whitfield: I am happy to.”
“Will the member give way on that point? Martin Whitfield: I am more than happy to, Mr Carlaw. Jackson Carlaw: Therein lies the problem, because, if we had passed this legislation in 2015, the hybrid arrangements that we now have would not have been reflected in it, and members could thereby have been recalled. Similarly, we do not know what the arrangements might be in a future session of Parliament, for which we might now set out criteria in the legislation. Therefore, it seems to me that we are trying to predict the future in ways that I think we cannot absolutely do. Martin Whitfield: I am grateful for that intervention. It is true that there are known unknowns and unknown unknowns. We do not know what the position would have been if history had chosen differently. We need to look at the position that we are in now.”
“I just hope that it does not end up being wishful thinking and that it can help to ameliorate some of the imperfections in our system, which could be better still. That will require momentum and commitment from all concerned. 15:36”
“The use of experts and, potentially, people’s panels to inform committee members on the detail of certain subjects in a productive way would assist committee members, who ultimately have responsibility for determining what the outcome will be, to do so on the basis of informed opinion from a wider scope of people. That would be a useful thing to do. Finally, post-legislative scrutiny has been the perennial talking point of the Parliament. Our recommendation is that a sunset clause on a number of pieces of legislation would actively force post-legislative scrutiny, because the Parliament would be required to consider the issue afresh. As I said, we will support the report tonight. There is a lot of good content in it.”
“Gosh, I have hardly managed to touch on anything, and my time is almost up. The issue of conveners is an important one that we want to reflect on. In relation to experts and engagement, I welcome the fact that the report embraces the idea of citizens panels. We had an evidence session with Brussels on the European Parliament’s use of a people’s panel to work with parliamentarians. It was fascinating to hear about the exchange of views. They all got in the room, and the parliamentarians looked at the members of the people’s panel and said, “Why should we listen to a thing you say? You’re not elected. We have a democratic mandate. We are the people’s representatives,” and the people on the people’s panel said, “Yes, but we actually know what we’re talking about, and you don’t.” After they got over that, they worked very well together.”