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 3 of 5.
“He stepped in and took away the female representative that we had on our small committee of five and then refused to replace her. The committee recognised in the evidence that it submitted to the inquiry that, on some issues, because of the committee membership, the questioning of witnesses when interrogating certain petitions might not have been what we wanted. However, it is difficult, because if a party were elected with responsibility to represent on various committees but did not have full gender balance, that would mean asking the female members of the group to undertake the responsibility of sitting on more committees. I am not sure how reasonable it would be if they were tied down to having to do that and other colleagues were not. However, we certainly want to adhere to that objective.”
“I do not want to cast aspersions, but there was no lack of enthusiasm from the members of my committee when we were doing the inquiry. That talks to the importance of the convener in holding everyone together and delivering enthusiasm. However, I am not casting aspersions and suggesting that the member was not doing that. Jackson Carlaw: I would hope not, but I understand the point. That is why there is an argument for the role of the convener being one that people value and something that they will adhere to for the duration of the session of Parliament. Gender is an interesting issue. The only female that I had on my Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee was pinched by Martin Whitfield, who is recommending that single-gender committees should not exist.”
“To return to the point that I was about to make about convenerships, we were a bit lukewarm about that. The proposal is interesting, and we will support the motion tonight, because it suggests the investigation of the possibility of how all that might happen and how conveners might be remunerated. One argument for remuneration might be that the committee convener commits to convening the committee for the entire length of the session and sets aside any other ambition. Therefore, they would not see the convenership of the committee as a stepping stone to anything else and would instead be totally focused on that. They would be able to do it independently and their effort would be recognised. Ruth Maguire: Do the points that Jackson Carlaw made about the continuity of the committee speak to the importance of the convener?”
“The member made an important point not only about the practicality of institutional memory but about the culture that we have a loyalty to our committee and a sense of purpose in serving on it. If that is upended at any moment, surely that means that the culture of the committee is fundamentally undermined. Jackson Carlaw: Why is it always colleagues who were formerly at Westminster who are fond of overseas trips? Notwithstanding that casual observation, what are the obstacles to continuity? In the first session of Parliament, the Government had about 18 ministers but, in this session, it has about 25. We have taken out about seven people who might be available to participate in committees. We have a lot of committees with large memberships and potentially too many people competing on them.”
“Where is the continuity in the narrative that emerges at the end of a process if those who have been party to the investigation have all gone? The only two people left on my committee—David Torrance and me—had to overcome the wave of indifference from colleagues who joined later, and who had nothing to do with the investigation about which we were about to write a terribly important report. Lack of continuity is fundamental. Paul Sweeney: Will the member take an intervention? Jackson Carlaw: I will take an intervention from Mr Sweeney—one of the members who left me. Paul Sweeney: As someone who was bereft of overseas visits as part of the committee’s work, I regret that change in committee role.”
“Page 1 of the committee report highlights one of the big difficulties. It states: “Evelyn Tweed left the Committee on 6 March 2024 and was replaced by Jackie Dunbar Stephen Kerr left the Committee on 28 March 2024 and was replaced by Oliver Mundell Ivan McKee left the Committee on 6 May 2024 and was replaced by Ruth Maguire Jackie Dunbar left the Committee ... and was replaced by Joe FitzPatrick Oliver Mundell left ... and was replaced by Sue Webber Joe FitzPatrick left the Committee ... and was replaced by Emma Roddick”. If I am right, that means that in practice only two of the people who initiated the inquiry were there at the end, when the committee published its report. That was exactly the same experience that I had on the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee when we were looking at the issue of public participation.”
“Sometimes the obstacle is a vested interest, sometimes it is a protocol or a practice, and sometimes, as I said earlier, it is the fact that the architects of a particular guideline move on and the guideline becomes a rule that people are then obliged to follow. It becomes a straitjacket rather than something that can be amended. I will not repeat the bulk of the submission that we made as a party, because it was a serious enterprise, but I will touch on a number of themes. I am supposed to be leading for my party, but I might stray from that strict responsibility a little bit from time to time. I commend the report, but the first thing that I want to talk about is continuity and committee sizes. I notice that the SPPA committee is a committee of five; my Citizens Participation and Public Petitions Committee is also a committee of five.”
“It is a pleasure to participate in this debate. I see that Richard Leonard is leading for the Labour Party. It is a kind of dinosaurs-R-us outing of the ancien régime of happy times past. Over the time that I have been in the Parliament, I have come to like it. I have come to admire it when it is at its best although—like others, I imagine—I have despaired of it at times. I do not believe that anything can ever be perfect, because every institution has its imperfections, but I have come to believe that there are potentially ways in which things can change. However, there are obstacles in the way of every change.”
“I look forward to listening to the views and reflections of other members from across the chamber, and I apologise to members for having used up all the spare time that we had earlier. I move, That the Parliament notes and welcomes the conclusions and recommendations in the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s 4th Report, 2025 (Session 6), Strengthening committees’ effectiveness (SP Paper 878); further notes that the Committee wishes to gauge the views of other Members on the introduction of a procedure for the election of committee conveners by the Parliament, and agrees to consider a proposed rule change for the election of committee conveners based on the procedure set out in annexe B to the report. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call the minister, Graeme Dey, to open on behalf of the Scottish Government. 15:20”
“In relation to convenerships and remuneration, as I have previously set out, we do not consider that conveners need to receive an additional payment in order to enhance their status. I am conscious of time—ironically, I would have liked to have talked about the capacity and workload of committees and, indeed, about the capacity and workload in relation to the chamber. Finally, I turn to the role of committee stakeholders and to the role that the public can play in helping to ensure that committees deliver effective scrutiny. The Parliament has always valued its relationship with the public and recognised its importance—I recommend the deliberative democracy proposals from the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, specifically those regarding the embedding of people’s panels in the work of committees.”
“Some felt that parties should be able to decide who their own representatives are as conveners. As a committee, we believe that the time is right to allow an opportunity for the whole Parliament to consider whether there should be elected conveners in the next parliamentary session. Our report sets out a model procedure, which broadly mirrors the one that is used in the Senedd. We consider that the model represents a proportionate approach to solving the problem of such elections, particularly in relation to the use of chamber time. We are keen to gauge the views of other members on that proposal before we make our formal recommendations for changes to standing orders.”
“In my experience, when people initially suggest something, it is just that—a suggestion, However, as time goes on, it becomes embedded as a practice that everyone must follow. I can think of other examples in parliamentary life where that has happened and discretion has gone out of the window. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I will give you another minute and 40 seconds, Mr Whitfield. Martin Whitfield: In the politest terms, let me suggest that that discussion is crucial but that it might be one for this venue at a different time. It speaks to real challenges that the Parliament has. We are aware of concerns about how having elected conveners would operate in practice and whether the size of the Parliament and, potentially, the small size of parties would mean that whips would still control who stands for nomination.”
“However, Jackson Carlaw is right that, at no stage, should any of that be orientated to create an identikit committee in an identikit Parliament that just does identikit things. To go back to my answer to John Mason, if MSPs who come into this place bring a skill with them, it is the skill of understanding and knowing themselves. They need to rely on that strength, as they will have done throughout campaigns and their political careers—however long or short they have been. They should have confidence to say, “No, that is not for me—but I do need this.” An open, two-way discussion about where someone can be supported does not necessitate an identikit product. Far from it. Jackson Carlaw: The problem that I have with that is that it is not the experience of the Parliament.”
“I hear all that about training, but I have a reservation, which is that we will end up producing little identikit people. That is my worry. Who trains the trainers? Who decides what the training should be? I am full of horror: I read Ross Greer going on about all that in the committee report. I do not want to be trained by Ross Greer on what he thinks my responsibilities as a convener of a committee should be. Who is responsible for that? I do not want a whole lot of identikit conveners. I want a range of personality and function. Yes, they have to understand some basic things, but let us not start straitjacketing what the job is with the definition of somebody with whom I might not agree. Martin Whitfield: I would also be afeared of the member being the judge of that.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what engagement it has had with Glasgow City Council regarding its proposals for an “at-city-boundary congestion charge” and a toll on the Clyde tunnel. (S6O- 05047)”
“When Russia invaded Ukraine, it was rightly called Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, and when Iraq was invaded, what was spoken of was Saddam Hussein’s war against Kuwait, but when Israel is attacked and forced to respond, it is too often referred to as Israel’s war. Rightly or wrongly, that phrase implies for many, and particularly for the Jewish community, that an entire people—the Jewish people—are responsible for the decisions of their Government. That is a dangerous double standard.”
“Every statistic that we hear represents men, women and children whose lives have been torn apart, and far too many of those statistics are the lives of men, women and children in Gaza. Let me be absolutely clear in the context of the unfolding of this event that Israel, like any sovereign nation, had the right—indeed, the duty—to defend its citizens. Hamas is not a government and it is not a liberation movement; it is, as Anas Sarwar recognised, a terrorist organisation. Its massacre of Israeli civilians, its kidnapping of the innocent and its relentless rocket fire are not acts of resistance; they are acts of terror. No responsible state could have sat idly by in the face of such atrocities. As I posed in my question to the First Minister, we should also reflect on the language that is used to describe the conflict.”
“The Scottish Conservatives are open to supporting the motion that is before the Parliament today. It has been quite carefully drafted; one can add different interpretations to it. Whether that is to accept all the content from the Scottish Government is a separate matter. We will be listening with care to the way in which the debate is conducted and in relation to any amendments that might be passed. The chamber is once again debating the middle east, a region that is too often characterised by tragedy, and today by the conflict in Gaza. We remember that we are not speaking in abstract terms but of human lives—of Israeli families who live under the terror of rocket fire and of Palestinian families who are trapped between the cruelty of Hamas and the failure of international institutions to protect them.”
“As the President of Ireland, Michael D Higgins, said one month ago, we are witnessing the “incredible, incredible destruction of an entire people”. The international community must act, Scotland must act, and the United Kingdom Government’s special responsibility places on it the unenviable but necessary burden of leading that endeavour. Motion moved, That the Parliament agrees with the recognition of the State of Palestine and that peace in the region must be pursued by all. 15:52”
“That will unlock $15 million of funding to deliver a rapid-deployment field hospital in Gaza that will provide essential services. The hub, which will be based in Dundee, will also be used to support field hospital deployments in future humanitarian crises. We will also donate £600,000 to the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs-led humanitarian fund for the occupied Palestinian territories to provide life- saving health services, supplies and shelter for those who are most at risk. We have also committed to providing medical support for up to 20 injured children from Gaza. We expect the first arrivals, along with their families, in mid- September. We face a defining moment in our lifetimes.”
“The Israeli authorities must immediately allow humanitarian agencies, including the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East—UNRWA—to complete their work unimpeded and at scale. Since the conflict began, the Scottish Government has committed £1.3 million for Gaza and the wider middle east, including £750,000 for UNRWA and a further £550,000 for the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal, Mercy Corps and the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund— £250,000 in total was announced in November 2024 and £300,000 was announced on 22 April 2025. The First Minister announced today that the Scottish Government will provide £400,000 of funding to Kids Operating Room to establish the Gaza HOPES field readiness hub in Scotland.”
“I represent Edinburgh’s synagogue, the central mosque and the churches of our main Christian denominations. Scotland’s Jewish community is a much-valued part of our national life, as the First Minister has made clear. I recognise—as we all do—how difficult things are for the Jewish community, not only because Hamas is still holding hostages, but because of the fears and charged emotions that exist in light of the appalling situation that is being meted out to Palestinian people. I acknowledge the Mr Carlaw’s point. We all need to be mindful of that aspect. In drawing my contribution to a close, I highlight that the Israeli Government’s approach to delivering aid via the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation has failed tragically.”
“I thank the cabinet secretary for the expression of that sentiment. He will know about the extraordinary efforts that have been entered into here in Scotland, not least through the Drumlanrig accord, which was promoted by Edward Green and Imam Dr Sayed Razawi. He will also know that, in response to the meeting that he had with the First Minister and the Jewish community, there are concerns. Among them is concern that such measures will fuel prejudicial action against the Jewish community in Scotland, and not least from the parents of pupils at Calderwood Lodge, in my constituency, which is Scotland’s only Jewish primary school and the world’s only Jewish- Catholic campus. How will he give effect to that sentiment? Angus Robertson: Jackson Carlaw is as committed to his Jewish constituents as I am to mine.”
“All the actions that I am setting out and endorsing or encouraging are designed to have that purpose.”
“The First Minister: I hope that, in my statement, I set out my absolute view that there needs to be a peaceful settlement in the middle east, in which the state of Israel and a Palestinian state can exist side by side, and that they can live in peace and security in the fashion that I discussed with Mr Sarwar a moment ago. I acknowledge that there is a difference between the actions of the Netanyahu Government and the actions of all the people of Israel. There is clearly a difference between those two elements, and it is important. The Netanyahu Government is in command of the government of Israel. It is that Government that is prosecuting the situation in Gaza. That is the Government that needs to be held to account. That is the Government that needs to change course.”
“The First Minister will understand that there will be differences between us on some aspects of the actions that he has outlined this afternoon. Will he join Scottish politicians of several parties who have drawn a distinction between the state of Israel and the present Government of Israel with its Netanyahu Administration? Israel is a democracy in which, at successive elections, a majority has not voted in favour of Mr Netanyahu’s Government or some of the extreme coalition partners in it. The conflation in language, in talking of the state of Israel and its prosecution of the atrocities in Gaza, is one that is used by others who have a much more malign intent towards the state of Israel itself.”
“Perhaps the best way to take things forward would be for me to meet Mr Carlaw to discuss those issues over the summer, so that I can properly and fully take stock of the progress that has been made and what requires to be undertaken. We can then report to the Parliament at the start of the parliamentary session in September. I will ask the health secretary to engage with the United Kingdom Government on the Hughes report. I will make arrangements to meet Mr Carlaw to discuss those issues. Amey (Redundancies)”
“Will the First Minister undertake to revisit the two reports and the many recommendations that the Government accepted in full, which I do not believe have yet been fully implemented, and update Parliament on the progress with that? Will he also ask the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care to work with the Labour Government at Westminster to revisit the recommendations of the Hughes report into compensation for the women who suffered the mesh injustice and who have waited far too long? The First Minister: I am very happy to take forward those points. I take this opportunity to express my appreciation for the distinguished public service and clinical leadership of Professor Alison Britton.”
“It is almost a year to the day that we learned of the untimely loss to cancer of Professor Alison Britton, an outstanding public servant, the timing of whose death meant that her contribution to public life in Scotland was not properly recognised by the Parliament. Not least of that contribution was her two groundbreaking landmark reports on transvaginal mesh that were commissioned by the Scottish Government. Her loss is keenly felt by me, by all her colleagues and by those who worked for her, but particularly by the thousands of women who suffered the injustice of mesh and who saw in her championship leadership.”
“The people who built Scotland deserve better, and the people who might yet contract mesothelioma ought to know that a national effort is being undertaken to make it possible for them to survive the disease, should it manifest itself, through the identification and implementation of a cure. 13:12”
“When we consider the incidence of mesothelioma that we are still seeing each year, the lack of public awareness of the disease and the suggestion that it is just a Scottish disease—well, not a Scottish disease as such, but a disease that, along with certain other conditions, has a higher incidence in Scotland than elsewhere—should not be obstacles to our making a renewed national effort to ensure that appropriate research is undertaken and our seeking to get to a point at which there is, indeed, a cure. The absence of a cure, the on-going lack of awareness of the condition and the lack of energy and urgency behind an attempt to find a cure are nothing short of a national disgrace.”
“We know that they drown, in effect, in great distress. There is no soft answer, and there is no cure. Members might not imagine this to be true, but East Renfrewshire, where my leafy constituency of Eastwood lies, has the fourth-highest ratio of mesothelioma deaths to road traffic deaths in the country. However, the public focus on road traffic deaths, road traffic management and road traffic accident prevention is huge.”
“I remember that one could see the asbestos dust in the air. Many people were involved in industries in which being around asbestos was absolutely part of their working day. They built Scotland in good faith, not recognising that they were doing so in an environment that would subsequently kill them. That is a great injustice and a huge tragedy, not least because for many people, including my uncle, pleural plaques did not manifest as part of the disease until they were much older—that happened decades after my uncle’s exposure to asbestos. I was in the motor industry, too, so perhaps I, too, have pleural plaques—I just do not know. Dying in the way that my uncle did was such an unjust way for anyone to end their life. For those people who end up having to suffer and die of mesothelioma, it is an absolutely ghastly experience.”
“Of the 2,700 new cases diagnosed each year, about 200 are in Scotland, and our nation endures one of the highest incidence rates of mesothelioma anywhere in the world. When I last participated in a debate on this issue, little did I know that my uncle would die of mesothelioma, which he did a few years ago. Alan Carlaw was in the motor industry, as was I. He had the British Leyland franchise, and we had the Ford franchise, which proved to be the more reliable of the two in the fullness of time. Those businesses, like many others, were housed in architecture that was built at a time when asbestos was a prevailing building material. It was back in the 1970s that our business sought to clear the asbestos out of our buildings, and we saw just how ridiculously it had been used as a manufacturing substance and how it had deteriorated.”
“I find it almost extraordinary that it has been about 18 years since I was first able to contribute to a debate on mesothelioma. That debate was led by Gil Paterson, Marie McNair’s predecessor in Clydebank, and at this point, I want to pay tribute to Clydebank Asbestos Group. Its sustained focus, and the fact that its members turn out in numbers when the condition is discussed, are quite remarkable and to be commended, as is the compassion that its members bring to the work and to the lives of those who subsequently suffer. Is it not extraordinary that this is yet another of those conditions, such as aortic aneurysms or Duchenne muscular dystrophy, that seem, all too tragically, to have a home in Scotland?”
“We should celebrate the fact that we have leading defence industries here in Scotland that employ the very best of our young people at the forefront of technology. We need to get behind them and be part of the defence of this country and the free world. Business Motion 17:07”
“Jackson Carlaw: I think that that stands as a helpful example of why the Scottish Government should think twice about any association with the Scottish Greens. We are talking about the Scottish Government’s lack of investment in the Rolls-Royce potential in the Clyde. I heard Mairi Gougeon say— unbelievably—that the Government is in favour of Scotland’s defence industries and its armed forces, because we need to defend ourselves, but that it is not in favour of giving our armed forces anything to defend themselves with. That is a completely unacceptable position. In 1989, when the Berlin wall fell, perhaps there were grounds for putting on rose-tinted spectacles. Maybe we were briefly seduced by the kind of world that we thought we might all be going to live in, but the world is evolving around us right now.”
“They talk about the need to be transparent, but in order to be transparent, it is necessary to be free, and in order to be free, it is necessary to have strong defences that allow us to defend our own country. Fifty years after a politician said that one’s first duty to freedom is to defend one’s own and acquired the sobriquet of the “Iron Lady” for her trouble, Lorna Slater looks to Kate Forbes and tells her that, instead, she should stand before our enemies and posture as the organic food lady. What possible defence of our country would that represent? Lorna Slater: Will the member take an intervention? Jackson Carlaw: I will, since Ms Slater was gracious enough to give way—eventually. Lorna Slater: Is the member trying to suggest that Winston Churchill did not commit war crimes?”
“Here is the nub of the issue, as far as I am concerned: how can the Scottish Government contemplate advice from the Greens, who, when we had a reception in Parliament during apprenticeship week for more than 100 16-year- olds working in a whole diverse section of the defence industries in this country, had Ross Greer on a megaphone outside this Parliament condemning them and egging on those who were pushing, shoving and spitting at them and accusing them of committing genocide? How is that supportable? Let us face it—the Scottish Greens are against Britain’s defence industries. They have accused Britain of committing war crimes. Ross Greer has talked about the war crimes of Churchill. The Greens talk about the war crimes of the UK Government, all the way through to the present Government.”
“Well, the last time that it was stronger for Scotland’s defences was when Derek Mackay sat on the front bench as its financial spokesman and actively campaigned on behalf of Thales in Govan for the ground-support vehicles that were needed to be manufactured here in Scotland, and, no doubt, deployed in the defence of this country. The Scottish Government could take the advice of someone such as Stewart McDonald, who sat with Mr Robertson at the Palace of Westminster, where he spoke knowledgeably on defence matters, and who is now clearly at war with his own back-bench friends here in the Scottish Parliament. However, instead of his advice, the Scottish Government is now taking the advice of the Scottish Greens.”
“I will start by congratulating Murdo Fraser on the comprehensive programme of defence industries that he identified in his speech. I also congratulate Daniel Johnson, Paul Sweeney, Edward Mountain and Jackie Baillie on what I thought were first-class, direct speeches that spoke to the very heart of the issue of the defence of this country. I also pay tribute to the hero of this afternoon’s proceedings, Angus Robertson, who was, in fact, the only member of the Government who was prepared to sit beside the Deputy First Minister. I watched Fiona Hyslop come in, note that the Deputy First Minister was sitting on her own, unsupported, on the front bench, and bravely sit in the row behind her. I am reminded of when it used to be that the slogan of the Scottish Government was “Stronger for Scotland”.”
“Every pound of public money that is spent on the arms industry is a pound that is spent on misery, death and suffering. Scotland deserves better. I move amendment S6M-17981.2, to leave out from “recognises” to end and insert: “notes with concern that, despite the Scottish Government’s policy that public funds to the defence industry should focus on diversification, at least £8 million of Scottish Enterprise grants have been awarded to companies involved in arms dealing and manufacturing since 2019; further notes that a number of these businesses have directly supplied weapons and military equipment to Israel during its assault on Gaza; understands that, despite this, still no company has failed Scottish Enterprise human rights due diligence checks, and calls, therefore, on the Scottish Government to urgently report on its promised review of Scottish Enterprise’s human rights checks before the summer recess and to provide Scottish Enterprise with a clear direction on the use of public funds to ensure that Scotland meets its international obligations.” 16:24”
“BAE Systems is already the biggest arms company in Europe, and Raytheon is the second biggest in the world. Every pound of public money needs to be spent carefully to ensure the maximum return on that investment. We need to make sure that public money goes to building wealth in Scotland and tackling our biggest challenges: stopping the climate catastrophe and eliminating child poverty. We need to make sure that it does not go into the pockets of multinational megacorporation arms dealers—I cannot believe that I have to say that. Scottish public money would be better spent on supporting small businesses, co-operative businesses, social enterprises and rural businesses. Scotland’s small clean energy, nature restoration and organic food businesses would have made good use of that money, not to mention our NHS, trains and ferries.”
“Will Lorna Slater take an intervention? Lorna Slater: I will take interventions during my closing speech. The Scottish Government offered to review Scottish Enterprise’s human rights checks. While that has been going on, 10,000 more people have been killed in Gaza. The Scottish Government needs to urgently report on that review and provide Scottish Enterprise with a clear direction on the use of public funds, to ensure that Scotland meets its international obligations. Many of these companies, which supposedly need Government support, are reporting huge profits, with BAE Systems reporting £3 billion- worth of profits last year alone. It is not at all clear that the megacorporations that rake in that kind of profit need our public money. BAE Systems, Raytheon and Leonardo have all received grants from Scottish Enterprise.”
“As for Michael Marra’s contribution, Scotland offers more generous and accessible public services than England does, because of higher per capita spending and the different policy choices that are made in Scotland. The big question is whether Labour will bring in policies such as free school meals, free bus travel for under-22s and free prescriptions throughout the UK to bring England’s public services up to the level of Scotland’s. So far, England has been lagging behind. Now that Labour is in government at Westminster, the Scottish Labour Party needs to look at how it will help England to catch up.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Lorna Slater: No—I have only four minutes. One of the things that Craig Hoy said that he would get rid of is the Scottish Land Commission, which is the public body that supports land reform. Land ownership in Scotland is highly unequal and concentrated, with a small number of individuals and entities owning vast areas of land—433 landowners own 50 per cent of Scotland’s privately owned land. That concentration limits opportunities for local and community development, especially in rural areas. It is mind- boggling that the Scottish Conservatives, who purport to champion rural areas, would want to get rid of that body. However, the Conservatives are, of course, in the business of keeping rich and powerful landlords and landowners rich and powerful. That is what they are here for.”
“They are brought together to consider a particular question: they hear from experts and are supported by trained facilitators as they consider the information in front of them and agree on recommendations. People’s panels in the Scottish Parliament context are very much tied to the scrutiny work of Parliament’s committees. They are not muscling in on the role of committees or duplicating the work being done by members.”
“Our proposals represent a relatively modest investment and are an incremental way of embedding an approach that is at the cutting edge of deliberative practice, has an incredibly positive and powerful impact on participants, supports scrutiny and can help to address some of the most important challenges that we face as a Parliament. Since we debated our previous report in this chamber, there have been two further people’s panels. One group considered the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 and the other group looked at reducing drug harm and drug deaths in Scotland. The panels involve groups of 25 randomly selected people who broadly represent the demographic make-up of Scotland. They do not decide things but make recommendations that the committee, Parliament and parliamentarians ultimately decide on.”
“I am not sure that that is exactly what I see when I look at him, but today is his opportunity to prove himself the equal of ancient Greece’s finest and I look forward to his confirmation of the same. In all seriousness, participation is not a new principle in respect of the way in which this Parliament operates. It is in the foundations: it was one of the principles set out by the consultative steering group on the Scottish Parliament and it is part of the way that we work in the chamber and in committees. After almost a full session of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee looking at how to embed participation in the work of the Parliament, I hope that the principle of public participation now sells itself, and so, this time, I am here to talk about the approach that the committee set out in our report and blueprint.”
“Those were the first citizens assemblies, so the concept is not a new one, although it is true that diversity may have been somewhat lacking, with only men able to vote—and probably only such as those able to vote besides. The concept of giving citizens an active role in democracy is one that the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee has been exploring throughout this session of Parliament. Two and a half millennia on, the blueprint that we have proposed will help to embed the spirit of the Athenian agora in the work of the Scottish Parliament, which, appropriately, sits in the Athens of the north. Here, then, is an opportunity for the minister to become Scotland’s Socrates, Plato or Aristotle.”