Richard Leonard
Scottish Labour · Scotland
“And yet we still hear calls, even during this stage 3 debate, in this, the third decade of the 21st century, in this Parliament, for the entitled voice of the laird and the privileged status of the landlord to be afforded their due place, as if they were a silent—they were an underrepresented—class in our society. If only they were.”
“It feels right to make my final speech in a debate led for Labour by Rhoda Grant, whose unswerving, loyal support to me in Parliament I have valued above all others’, and in a debate which, at its very essence, is about power, is about wealth, is about control and its ugly, unequal distribution.”
“Before I finish, before I leave for the very last time, I want to thank the outstanding people who have worked with me over the last 10 years: Billy McCauley, Thomas Mulvey, Craig Miller, Lesley Brennan, Lauren Harper, Linda Shevlin, Rich Simcox, and the one person who has been there from the very first to the very last, Mike Holmes.”
“So let me finish where it all began: two years after the very first crofters holdings act was passed, in direct response to the land raids, the forced Highland clearances, the battles against eviction—resistance often led by the women of the crofts—it was the crofters, led by their MP, Dr G B Clark, and the miners, led by Keir Hardie, who…”
“Eight years in the making, the Government has come up with a largely technical bill, which we will vote for, but it is the same formula that the Government has been habitually serving up—on the broader question of land reform, on a national care service, on community wealth building.”
“This is my last speech to Parliament as a member, after 10 years. As a back bencher and a front bencher, as a party leader and a committee convener, I have always tried to speak out not only for the labour and trade union movement who sent me here, but for all of those oppressed, denied justice, exploited, voiceless—and so, for those seas…”
The complete record
Every one of 399 lines we hold for Richard Leonard, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 8.
“The winding-up of the new town corporations such as Cumbernauld’s was more about securing financial returns to the Treasury, selling off more of the family silver and asset stripping at knockdown prices than about securing the long-term wellbeing of the Scottish economy. But, through determined pressure from a united community, we managed to secure the transfer of the housing stock to the newly established local authority when the Tory Government of the day wanted the stock and assets to be transferred to private landlords and commercial interests. I visited Cumbernauld fire station two weeks ago. The station was built in the 1970s and it has reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, so it raises safety concerns. The firefighters I spoke to were promised a new station.”
“Too much of it was in virulently anti-trade union electronics factories, which became increasingly characterised as assembly-only screwdriver plants—and characterised as well by mobile capital, which moved on. In Cumbernauld, this meant Burroughs Machines—gone; OKI Electric Industry—gone; and Isola Werke—gone. That provided the background to some of my formative experiences in the trade union movement, dealing with a hostile environment that was, of course, created by those multinational corporations but encouraged by an unrepresentative, unaccountable and undemocratic Scottish Office and its agencies. I also look back to the winding-up of the new town development corporations, which coincided with the abolition of an entire tier of local government, gerrymandered boundaries and the introduction of the poll tax.”
“So, it was an act with a social plan to tackle poverty, want and disease to improve public health. Jamie Hepburn: Mr Leonard is right to talk about the challenges that existed in post-war industrial Lanarkshire, but, at the time, Cumbernauld was—and many people feel it still should be—part of Dunbartonshire. Richard Leonard: Well, that is a moot point. I suspect that I am well advised not to get involved in that debate, especially with Mr Hepburn. Let me turn to the economic planning aspect of the act of Parliament. Between 1953 and 1978, when, across Scotland as a whole, there was a net decrease of 89,000 manufacturing jobs, across the five Scottish new towns, manufacturing employment rose by 32,000. Much of this was foreign direct investment.”
“I thank Jamie Hepburn for lodging the motion, because it is right that the Parliament recognises the fact that next Tuesday marks 70 years to the day since Cumbernauld was designated as a new town under the act of Parliament introduced by the visionary, the courageous, the socialist Labour Government of 1945. It was an act founded on economic planning for full employment. It was an act that recognised that, in pre-war Lanarkshire, almost half of the working class were employed in just four industries—coal mining, metal manufacture, shipbuilding and engineering—and so it was an act that demanded an economic plan for industrial diversification. It was also an act with a founding principle: to tackle the overcrowding and the slum housing that blighted cities like Glasgow.”
“Amendment 2 disagreed to. The Presiding Officer: That ends the consideration of amendments. As members will be aware, I am required under standing orders to decide whether, in my view, any provision of a bill relates to a protected subject matter—that is, whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. In this case, in my view, no provision of the Non-Domestic Rates (Liability for Unoccupied Properties) (Scotland) Bill relates to a protected subject matter. Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3. Before we move to the debate, I call Shona Robison to signify Crown consent to the bill.”
“For Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer] Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Lorna Slater] Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Fulton MacGregor] Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) The Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 24, Against 86, Abstentions 0.”
“The Presiding Officer: Let us hear Mr Hoy. Craig Hoy: That is a matter for Mr Ross. The emergency nature of the legislation is such that I think that we are taking what could be perceived to be unconventional routes to try to achieve transparency, and therefore I will press amendment 2. The Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“Craig Hoy: It is not ordering the Auditor General to do anything—[Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us hear Mr Hoy. Craig Hoy: It is simply showing, as was pointed out, that there is an option for the Auditor General to investigate what I think could potentially be a significant sum of public money that is put on the line. Richard Leonard: I hear what Mr Hoy is saying, but what he is trying to do is put an amendment on the face of this legislation. That is completely different from offering an opinion or putting out a press release. Does he not understand the step that that would represent, and the line that that would cross, if it were to be accepted and voted for by this Parliament? Craig Hoy: I refer back to some of the remarks made by Douglas Ross earlier. The emergency nature of the legislation— Members: Where is he?”
“Amendment 2 states: “The Auditor General for Scotland may carry out a review of the circumstances”. Of course, that is a statement of fact; the Auditor General may indeed choose to carry out a review, and may choose not to carry out a review. However, the important point—as Richard Leonard articulated so strongly—is that it is not for the Parliament or the Government to indicate what the Auditor General may or may not, or should or should not, do. I therefore urge all members not to support the amendment. The Presiding Officer: I call Craig Hoy to wind up and say whether he wishes to press or withdraw amendment 2. Craig Hoy: I like and respect Richard Leonard, but I think that his interpretation of the amendment is wrong— Members: No.”
“For the record, let me remind Mr Hoy what that says: “The Auditor General for Scotland shall not, in the exercise of any” —of any—of his duties and “functions, be subject to the direction or control of any member of the Scottish Government or of the Parliament.” So, let us vote this amendment down. Ivan McKee: Once again, I have to thank Richard Leonard for his contribution. Frankly, if it does not lead to his being at least nominated for debater of the year at next year’s Scottish politician of the year awards, I, for one, shall be shocked and surprised. His speech was a tour de force, laying out clearly and strongly the principles that underline that hugely important part of the way in which we operate in the chamber, and I am very grateful to him for that.”
“But it would be very dangerous; it would be a bad precedent; it would be a slippery slope; it would compromise the checks and balances of our democracy; and it would compromise the independence of the Auditor General, who must be allowed to act without fear or favour, if Parliament or Government told the Auditor General what he can and cannot audit, and what he should and should not audit, and the scope of any such audit, and put such a gesture on the face of a bill. Finally, we have heard a lot from the Conservatives in the past 24 hours about legal challenges to this legislation—about court cases and court action. If this amendment were inserted, there would be a legal challenge to this legislation, because it is a clear breach of section 69(4) of the Scotland Act 1998.”
“Let me say at stage 3 what I said at stage 2: it is not right, it is not constitutional, it is not competent and it is not democratic to attempt to write into legislation—into a law that could be passed by this Parliament, and which could be supported by the Government of the day in this Parliament—a call for, even if it is no longer an instruction to, the Auditor General to carry out a review or an examination of this or that event. That should not be on the face of a bill of this Parliament. That is for the Auditor General to decide. He is rightly independent. He is not subject to the control of any member of the Scottish Government or Parliament, or of the Scottish Government or this Parliament collectively, and neither should he be. Mr Hoy is very proficient at issuing press releases. He can issue a press release making this call.”
“I will check the record, because I thought that Douglas Ross said that he made an offer that we could not refuse, which was that, if we were able to commit to being fully transparent, as we have been and were yesterday, he would not move amendments 11 and 12. However, as I said, maybe I misheard that. Douglas Ross: Will the minister take an intervention?”
“As I said, ministers were first informed of the situation on 21 August. Given the legal checks that needed to be carried out in order to introduce the legislation, and given the implications of it not being passed in good order, the Government has moved at pace to ensure that all aspects of the issue are considered and that robust legislation is introduced. To answer Douglas Ross’s question, I say that we are content to be fully transparent on the communications that happened around the legislation and the dates in that regard. Douglas Ross: I am very pleased with the positive response from the minister. Can he go a little further and confirm that he will vote for amendments 11 and 12? Ivan McKee: I must have misheard.”
“The issue with the legislation was missed by Scottish Government lawyers, by parliamentary lawyers, by councils, by experts in NDR legislation, by academics and by ratepayers. Of course, there was an issue with the legislation and there should not have been, but we must bear in mind the complexity of NDR legislation. Some of it dates from 1854, and the many acts and more than 150 SSIs that have been passed in the period since then are all relevant to the legislation that we are discussing. Work was done, but, unfortunately, that specific piece of 1956 legislation was not covered. We apologise for that. On Douglas Ross’s offer not to move his amendments, as indicated yesterday, the Government is happy and content to be fully transparent about what happened with regard to the development of the situation over that period of time.”
“Section 69(4) of the Scotland Act 1998 states: “The Auditor General for Scotland shall not, in the exercise of any of his functions, be subject to the direction or control of any member of the Scottish Government or of the Parliament.” It would therefore not be our place to force the Auditor General, who is independent of Government, to investigate the matter. Of course, he may choose to do so if he sees fit. That issue speaks to the quality of the amendments that have been lodged by the Conservatives at this stage. As Richard Leonard clearly indicated, amendment 13 is very much not competent. With regard to the other points that have been made, I have highlighted that the timeline of what happened has been lodged with SPICe, so that everyone is aware of that. The Government, of course, apologises for the situation that we are in.”
“Now, he may do that, but we are on a very slippery slope if the Government or even Parliament tells the Auditor General what he can and cannot investigate and what he should or should not investigate. I think we need to vote down amendment 13, and it should not see the light of day again. The Convener: I call the minister. Ivan McKee: A number of issues have been raised, but I will start with the contribution from Richard Leonard, who put it better than I could with regard to the amendment calling for action on the part of the Auditor General. It is not the role of Government to require the Auditor General to do specific work.”
“I rise as a member of this Parliament but also as the convener of its Public Audit Committee. Mr Hoy is a former member of the Public Audit Committee, so he knows, and he should know, that it is not competent, it is not constitutional and it is not democratic for either Parliament or, worse, Government to instruct the Auditor General for Scotland to conduct a review. Look at the language in amendment 13. It states: “The Auditor General must carry out a review” and uses the language: “The Auditor General must, within 12 months”. No—that is not competent. We had it recently with Fergus Ewing, a former cabinet secretary, who called on the Scottish Government to instruct the Auditor General for Scotland to carry out an inquiry into the ScotWind licensing round.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I was not able to log in. Had I logged in, I would have voted yes. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Leonard. We will ensure that that is recorded. Martin Whitfield: On a point of order, Presiding Officer. There was chaos—I would have voted yes. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Whitfield. We will ensure that that is recorded.”
“They should be seen as an alternative line of advance for working people, through which workers can participate in the running of our public services like water, like the railways, like the national health service and like local government services.”
“At the same time, the bill could usher in an action plan to start insourcing services that the Scottish Government currently outsources, like the much-criticised prisoner escort service, and the insourcing of all that public money wasted on management consultants, by simply drawing instead on the expertise of the workers who are delivering the services. I have often thought that, if the Government had listened to the workforce at Ferguson Marine instead of hiring highly paid turnaround directors, rear admirals and naval commodores, and international management consultants, the ferries would have been in the service of our island communities years ago. We should stop seeing trade unions simply as a last line of defence for working people.”
“The bill could give workers the power to appoint a financing member to assist in such a buy-out, and it could have the power to place a duty on employers to advance contractual redundancy entitlements to co-invest and help to self-fund that buy-out, underpinned by tax incentives like non-domestic rates relief where there is a co-operative conversion, exemption from land and buildings transaction tax, and progressive procurement policies, like reserved contract status for co-operative, inclusive and democratic business models. That could be done by amending section 11 of the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 and regulation 21 of the Public Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 2015.”
“This bill could properly resource, revamp and place on a statutory footing Co-operative Development Scotland, arming it with the instruments of investment that it demands and the technical assistance and expertise that it needs, and giving it new legal powers to intervene in the economy through an industrial reform and common ownership act—a Marcora law for Scotland—to give workers a new legal right to buy an enterprise when it is put up for sale or even facing closure.”
“It could be providing the leadership for a genuinely democratic green industrial revolution; one that is not wholly dependent, as this Government would have it, on foreign direct investment—our energy resources and our new industries once again colonised by private interest, which is a policy courted, incentivised and boasted of by the Scottish National Party, with the result that Scotland is turning more and more into a branch economy.”
“I remind members of my voluntary entry in the register of members’ interests. What the Community Wealth Building (Scotland) Bill could be about is direct action; new statutory powers—not just words but deeds. It could rekindle the radical tradition that dates all the way back to Robert Owen and the Fenwick weavers. It could put forward a vision of hope: Scotland as a centre for co-operative development—a Mondragón of the north; a new era of economic democracy.”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its engagement with the Financial Conduct Authority and other organisations regarding the impact on policyholders of the withdrawal of the family protection plan by CMutual and Maiden Life Försäkrings. (S6O-05158)”
“If ever a piece of legislation raised more questions than answers, it is this one, but I think there are a few principles that we need to consider. We need to defend the principle of equality and of equal treatment—of the equal application of rules and laws to list and constituency members of this Parliament alike. There should be a presumption of political equality. The second principle is that this should not be cost driven or financially led. Before 1832, only 2 per cent of the population had the vote. Before 1928, women and men still did not have an equal right to vote. Had shallow arguments of money values above human values been applied then, we would never have achieved universal suffrage and the equal franchise.”
“Jim Fairlie: The Government will continue to communicate with potential operators in Scotland’s main ports and to explore the opportunities for all new commercial ferry services, so that Scottish exports and passengers have more direct routes to and from Europe. All those considerations will be taken into account. Income Tax 6.”
“I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which notes that I am the convener of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers Scottish parliamentary group. I welcome the Government’s consideration of the proposal, which would benefit our international links. However, in its consideration of the proposal, can the minister give an assurance that any operator would have to follow the fair work principles and recognise trade unions, and that we will not see the blatant negation of workers’ rights that we witnessed at P&O Ferries, which sacked and replaced 800 seafarers by video message?”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app would not connect to the voting system. I would have abstained, apparently. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Leonard. We will ensure that that is recorded.”
“As long as we have an economy largely driven by the market and primarily run for the accumulation of wealth, and as long as we have a society that is self-evidently riven with class divisions, we will never end poverty. That is why we need not just welfare interventions as amelioration; what we need is a decisive, an irreversible and a permanent shift in the balance of wealth and power, because these inequalities are structural. So we need radical action and fundamental change—economic as well as political change—with a change in economic relations and so power relations. We need a new equilibrium. That is the only way we will change the material conditions, the quality of life and the fate of the people we are sent here to represent. 17:22”
“As we know from the findings of previous years’ reports, if you are from a black, Asian or minority ethnic background and living in Scotland, you are twice as likely to die in poverty than if you are white. Last year in the debate, the minister also proclaimed: “I believe that we have to approach the issue from a very non-political perspective and work together to get the best results for the people of Scotland.”—[Official Report, 5 December 2024; c 45, 47.] Now, I am happy to work together, but this is highly political. We have grotesque poverty in the midst of obscene wealth. These findings are not just about poverty; they are about inequality—a sordid inequality of not just income and not just wealth but a sordid inequality of power, which is class based.”
“Replying to the debate on the 2024 report by Marie Curie last December, the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health told us that “The Scottish Government is assessing the report and looking at where we can make changes.” But the preliminary findings from this year’s report are absolutely clear—that end-of-life poverty has stagnated and has not improved between 2019 and 2024, despite some policy efforts, and in some areas, it has worsened. In the local authority areas that I am elected to represent in this Parliament—North Lanarkshire, South Lanarkshire and Falkirk—it has stagnated, with an average of one in four people of working age and one out of six people of pensionable age still dying in poverty.”
“I cannot help thinking about the inverse care law—that those in the most need of support are oftentimes the ones least likely to receive it—and about how poverty and deprivation fuel conditions like clinical depression, how the suicide rate in our most deprived communities is two and a half times that of our least deprived communities and how, as the Association for Palliative Medicine has warned, “palliative care is underfunded and unevenly available.” Assisted dying, it concludes, “risks deepening inequalities for vulnerable groups”. That is why its members overwhelmingly oppose it, as do I.”
“I thank Paul Sweeney for lodging the motion and so, for the second year running, leading this debate in Parliament. It has become a significant annual debate about an important annual report published by Marie Curie—and this year once again produced in collaboration with Loughborough University. The report is above all else about the way we live with terminal illness, and I say “we” because it could happen to any of us at any time—and I say “we” because we do not live as individuals or as consumers in a market; we live as citizens in a society, in a community where we look out for each other. The preliminary findings also compel us to examine the world in which the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill, which has been back before Parliament again just this week, is conducted.”
“I cannot help but reflect that, when I led the Scottish Labour Party, the honour of doing so was reward in itself—the greatest honour of my life— and there was no additional payment. In fact, the only perk in that sense was a guaranteed car parking space. In the end, a healthy democracy rests on the twin pillars of consent and dissent. This debate is not about and cannot be about the efficiency of the bureaucracy; it has to be about the restoration of trust in politics, in politicians and in this Parliament. This is no time to be conservative—or moderate, even. It is time, in my view, to be radical. 15:43”
“To counter the point that Jackson Carlaw made, in my case, especially in the early days of being convener of the Public Audit Committee, I was able to draw on the wisdom of Hugh Henry, who had previously chaired the Public Audit Committee in an earlier session. His knowledge and his political judgment were things that I set a great deal of store by and relied on. However, I am to be persuaded that there should be remuneration for the role of committee convener. I simply do not accept the argument that some have deployed that getting paid extra would boost the profile of committee conveners or increase the significance of their role. We are, in my view, already well paid.”
“Stephen Kerr: Under the Scotland Act 1998, we already have formidable powers to compel witnesses to appear before committees. I hope that, before Richard Leonard finishes his speech, he will return to his first theme, which was about why change in this Parliament rarely seems to happen, because that is the kernel of the issue. We all agree that things should improve, but why does that improvement not happen? Richard Leonard: I will do my level best to answer that question in the time that I have left. I was addressing the issue of training, and I was bound to say, when listening to the earlier part of this debate, that every convener should be issued with a copy of Walter Citrine’s “The ABC of Chairmanship”, which was widely circulated in the trade union movement.”
“I was struck by Lorna Slater’s point in the last debate on this back in May, which is also reproduced in the committee’s report, that these convenership elections would need to be about a commitment to rigorous scrutiny, which, of course, they must, but when Lorna Slater says that we need to “avoid popularity contests”, I disagree. Popularity is surely what democratic elections are about. It is the same principle that we accept when electing Parliament’s Presiding Officer and Deputy Presiding Officers. On other recommendations in the report, there should be greater powers to compel witnesses to attend committees to give oral and written evidence, and, of course, on the question that we have already covered, there should be training for committee members.”
“Do not get me wrong—all the members have made a valuable contribution, but there is no getting away from the fact that, without a broader range of life experience around that committee room table as we scrutinise our major public institutions, their spending, their governance, their leadership and sometimes even their conduct, that important diversity of perspectives is missing. It is my firm belief that we must rule—legislate, even—for that not to happen again on any parliamentary committee. I am also convinced that accountability to Parliament, not to party or the patronage of party leaders, through the election by Parliament of committee conveners would help in the separation of the executive and the legislature.”
“It is a mandatory committee in which representatives of the party of government are, by that same rule, in a minority. It is a small committee, with just five members, and that is not a weakness; that is its strength. Among that small number, we also have experienced a turnover in membership. Let me say for the record that, since Sharon Dowey stepped down as deputy convener in 2023, and Roz McCall and then Stephanie Callaghan stepped down as substitute members, the Public Audit Committee, in all its incarnations for the past couple of years, has been all male.”
“All of us must be vigilant to the rise of a new authoritarianism in the midst of democratic politics. Make no mistake: our civil liberties, our human rights and our constitutional settlement are not sacrosanct or inviolate. We cannot take them for granted. That is what history teaches us—that we have to fight for them. Today, I am invited to contribute as the opening speaker on behalf of the Labour Party, although members must take it as read that I am no longer necessarily and at all times on message. [Laughter.] As I reflect on the committees that I have been privileged to serve on in this Parliament, it remains my firm belief that, among those, the Public Audit Committee has been the most effective, but it is a rare spirit of a parliamentary committee. It is chaired by a member of an Opposition party as a matter of rule.”
“I thank the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee for producing this thorough and important report into committee effectiveness. We must be clear this afternoon that we are serious about democratic renewal and that we recognise that the balance of power between Government and Parliament, and between Parliament and the people, needs a new vitality, because that is what this debate is about. It is about how Parliament can better hold the executive to account, but we should never lose sight of the role of the people in holding Parliament to account. By that, I do not mean some kind of elective dictatorship; I mean a much more participatory style of democracy—a form of government that not only functions for the people but functions through the people.”
“It is my sincere hope that the next Scottish Parliament will finally deliver bold legislation to address the concentration of land ownership, to tackle the neglected issues of urban land reform and to improve the community right to buy process so that more communities can participate. The concentration of land ownership in Scotland is not inevitable; it is a political choice, and political choices can be changed. The Scottish Greens will continue the fight. 18:32”
“Such measures are a start as we shift our agricultural policy towards supporting those farmers who are looking to innovate because of the environmental changes that we expect to see in the coming decades. This is not the end of the journey. I say to those in Community Land Scotland, to Revive coalition members and to communities across Scotland who are fighting for land justice: we, the Scottish Greens, remain absolutely committed to the transformative land reform that Scotland requires. The Government’s bill might not deliver that, but the movement for change continues to grow stronger. Today is not the end of the road, and we will not give up the fight for proper land reform.”
“Recently, I was contacted by a tenant farmer in my region who wants to do more nature-friendly farming but has found themselves stymied by a lease that, “Although written in 1982, reads like something from the 1800s.” They added: “It doesn’t reflect the progressive and modern lens we approach farming with … All we want here is to be able to farm in a way that allows us to earn a living, contribute to our communities, produce high quality food and look after our environment.” I am glad to have been able to make some small changes at stage 2 that will allow tenants to take up regenerative agricultural practices and convert to organics without needing permission from their landlord.”
“As I said earlier, the Scottish Greens cannot vote whole-heartedly for this legislation given that part 1 of the bill falls so far short of what Scotland needs and what our communities deserve. However, I acknowledge the achievement for Scotland’s tenant farmers in part 2 of the bill.”
“Had our proposal for a public interest test been accepted, we could have had legislation that placed a limit on how much land an individual can own and required them to demonstrate how they would use it for the public benefit. That would have been meaningful land reform. Instead, the bill asks communities to continue their struggles without giving them the tools that they truly need. The concentration of ownership persists. The imbalance of power remains. Communities across the Highlands and Islands and rural Scotland will still find themselves fighting uphill battles against landowners who control vast estates but face little accountability and limited transparency about their intentions.”
“Liam McArthur reminded us that inequality in land ownership creates fewer opportunities for rural communities to evolve. Alasdair Allan talked about the history of the struggle for land reform, going back as far as 1886. However, I must return to my central concern, which is that part 1 does not go far enough. Without putting in place robust measures to address concentrated ownership, we are treating the symptoms while leaving the disease untouched. Let me be specific about what is missing. The legislation does not do nearly enough to ensure that public interest outweighs private interest when it comes to how the land around us is used.”
“So let them be my final words today: “Inevitably there should be a move toward the common ownership of land in order that the benefits of what is after all a natural gift can be once again shared by the whole community.” It will be for those elected to the next Parliament to rekindle the vitality of those ideas, to think big and act radical; to take on those vested interests. Although, by then, I will be gone, I will be outside Parliament—this cause of land justice, this demand for equality and this claim of right for our democracy will forever, forever, have my undying support. 18:28 Ariane Burgess: The contributions that we have heard today reflect the depth of feeling about land reform across the chamber. I share the disappointment expressed by Rhoda Grant that smaller areas of land were not brought into the bill’s scope.”