Daniel Johnson
Scottish Labour · Scotland
“When people feel threatened, they resort to violence. That is why I absolutely associate myself with the minister’s words. We must all take responsibility for our words and reflect on the current circumstances and situations.”
“We could forgive the Reform members for being inexperienced, but they have made this debate about them, so let us talk about them. I do not think that they do themselves any favours whatsoever.”
“Daniel Johnson: Were it only about the terminology that Reform is using, it would be one thing, but it is not. Let us look at some of the words used by Reform politicians, both here and in other places: calling for “cold rage”, describing our justice system as being “two tier” and describing recent migrants as being of “fighting age”.”
“Malcolm Offord opened the debate by saying that, through its motion, Reform rejects the SNP’s version of mediocrity. What was clear from the rest of his speech was that that is because he has his own very special version of mediocrity. The whole of Reform’s approach to the debate is summed up by the motion.”
“Likewise, on energy—we need to talk about what a sensible mix looks like, but, if you wrap yourself up in climate denialism, you absolutely delegitimise your argument. We do need to talk about migration. Did my party get it right when we opened up so quickly to accession countries? That should be debated.”
“Are these the politics that you want to enable and represent? [Interruption.] Thomas Kerr is laughing. If he thinks that violence in this city is funny, I am outraged— deeply outraged. He should think very carefully, because people in this city were injured.”
The complete record
Every one of 684 lines we hold for Daniel Johnson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 14.
“Are these the politics that you want to enable and represent? [Interruption.] Thomas Kerr is laughing. If he thinks that violence in this city is funny, I am outraged— deeply outraged. He should think very carefully, because people in this city were injured. There was a clear incitement and the words that he and others in his party have used do not help that situation. Malcolm Offord: Will the member give way? Daniel Johnson: I will give way to Malcolm Offord.”
“When people feel threatened, they resort to violence. That is why I absolutely associate myself with the minister’s words. We must all take responsibility for our words and reflect on the current circumstances and situations. Whether or not there is a direct causal link is one thing, but, in the context of recent violence, both in Scotland and elsewhere, it is certainly deeply irresponsible to use such rhetoric and language. I understand and recognise that, in the new Reform group in the Parliament, there are many different members from many different backgrounds. I have got to know many of you and I have had conversations with you. I understand that some of you come from public service backgrounds and that most of you are here to do a job and to make a difference. However, I say this to you: is this the party that you want to be?”
“Daniel Johnson: Were it only about the terminology that Reform is using, it would be one thing, but it is not. Let us look at some of the words used by Reform politicians, both here and in other places: calling for “cold rage”, describing our justice system as being “two tier” and describing recent migrants as being of “fighting age”. Those words constitute incitement and they are deeply problematic. Let us go through why. First of all, those words are alienating. They actively and deliberately place divisions between fellow citizens and fellow residents of this country. They inspire a sense of conspiracy in the system itself. Ultimately, what they are deliberately designed to do—I think that members across the chamber know this—is instil a sense of threat among many people in our country.”
“Likewise, on energy—we need to talk about what a sensible mix looks like, but, if you wrap yourself up in climate denialism, you absolutely delegitimise your argument. We do need to talk about migration. Did my party get it right when we opened up so quickly to accession countries? That should be debated. Was a net inward migration figure of 900,000 sustainable? I do not think that it was. We have to talk about the consequences, but, if you wrap yourselves up in the rhetoric of racism and intolerance, you totally devalue your arguments and you make it impossible to talk about the nuance that we must tackle. Angela Ross: Would you not accept that when we talk about Scottish people, we mean people of all colours and faiths who are in Scotland?”
“We could forgive the Reform members for being inexperienced, but they have made this debate about them, so let us talk about them. I do not think that they do themselves any favours whatsoever. There is a place to talk about difficult issues and perhaps to challenge the consensus, but let us look at some of the things that they are talking about. We need to reform our public services, but scrapping 132 public bodies is not credible. That would include all the health boards, in one go, and it would include Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd. Are we really saying that those should be run directly by the Government? Angela Ross: Will Daniel Johnson give way? Daniel Johnson: In a moment. The proposal would also include things that the Government absolutely should not be running, such as the courts service. That is not credible.”
“Malcolm Offord opened the debate by saying that, through its motion, Reform rejects the SNP’s version of mediocrity. What was clear from the rest of his speech was that that is because he has his own very special version of mediocrity. The whole of Reform’s approach to the debate is summed up by the motion. Somebody should really have told Reform members that this will not be the only Opposition debate that they will get, because they tried to put absolutely everything in the motion. I am sorry to poke fun, but they came to the Parliament saying that they were going to change things up. Let me say this to them: being inflammatory is not challenging consensus; being controversial is not the same thing as offering critique; and being chaotic is not delivering change.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am sure that you are aware that employers are not liable for national insurance contributions for apprentices under the age of 25. Could you advise how one might correct the record if they had misled Parliament with regard to that fact?”
“To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the provision of post- school skills pathways. (S7O-00118)”
“Although we seek to anticipate the requirement for legislative consent motions, situations such as this sometimes arise and it is important that committees can—as they do—scrutinise consent for such bills. That goes beyond the two Governments agreeing. It is important that Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise the consent that it is giving and the powers that are being conveyed to the UK Government by the Parliament. In closing, I direct members to my entry in the register of members’ interests: I am a member of Community, the steelworkers’ union. 17:57”
“That bill went through two houses to get to the stage of being passed, and it was expedited. It had amendments that were not even passed or considered. The bill before us is deficient, and the UK Government is making de facto law. Daniel Johnson: There is a clear, overarching national interest in securing the steel industry, which I think goes far beyond other considerations. The bill is vital, and it is important that it is expedited so that we have the powers to ensure that the furnaces do not close. I acknowledge many of the points that the minister made about the circumstances. Unfortunately, the timing of the bill’s introduction coincided with the election of this Parliament, the setting up of its committees and the recess. We should think about how committees can respond flexibly in the future.”
“Once those furnaces close, they cannot simply be turned back on again—and there is a very real risk of that. I note Rachael Hamilton’s concerns, but this is not just AN Other sector or AN Other business. If the site closes, that will have very serious and dramatic consequences not just for the whole of UK industry but for UK national security. Nor is this an isolated action. The UK steel strategy was announced in March, with £2.5 billion allocated by the UK Government through the National Wealth Fund, targets set to boost UK steel production to 50 per cent from the current level of 30 per cent and support confirmed for the development of electric arc furnaces to secure the future of UK steel production. Rachael Hamilton: Even the legislation for the pandemic had a sunset clause.”
“There are clear matters of national security, but they also have clear economic consequences. We need to note, as the minister did, that steel is the most important primary product in manufacturing processes. National security requires it. We need to acknowledge the current situation of war in Europe with a belligerent Russia. Taking that seriously means acknowledging that our defence industry is built in steel. Civil contingency also requires steel to build infrastructure. Beyond that, wider strategic national economic interests require steel. We are very focused on renewables, renewables infrastructure and the electrification of the economy. Those things are built in steel. The reality is that the Scunthorpe site is the last site in the entire UK that is capable of producing virgin steel.”
“I welcome both the Government’s motion and the minister’s comments this afternoon. This is an incredibly important issue and steel is an incredibly important product. Let me make some overarching comments, because I understand the Scottish Government’s reservation regarding the legislative consent motion that is before us today. In a broad sense, the economy is an area of overlapping responsibilities. Although it is reserved within the Scotland Act 1998, many of the key component parts of policy around the economy lie within devolved areas, and therefore it is an area of overlap. The more fundamental point in relation to this situation is that national security and the economy have become more intertwined in recent months and years than they perhaps were when the 1998 act was being drafted. That is one of the issues at hand here.”
“It is hugely important that we undertake that. Some of the challenge that Mr Johnson set out is fair. I have set out a number of actions, particularly in relation to the general review of the assessor function, which has not ruled out a potential role for a national assessor, which was the other point that Mr Johnson mentioned. It is important to place that on the record. I see Daniel Johnson nodding; I hope that we have some agreement, finally, on that point.”
“I heard the word “welcome” from Daniel Johnson, so I will cling to that, because I am trying to listen to positivity. I hope that he listened to the tone of my statement, which asked for positive contributions, across parties, to engage with the Government on the reviews that will now take place. It is important that we improve access to billing because of the challenges that businesses have set out to ministers in relation to the evidence that they are presented with. It is also important that that is worked on with local government and the Improvement Service, which is why I have engaged directly with COSLA on two occasions already. The Minister for Public Finance and I look forward to taking part in a number of engagements with business to inform the review that we will undertake across the summer months.”
“I thank the Cabinet Secretary for advance sight of her statement. Although the changes will, no doubt, be welcome, I think that there will be disappointment that more fundamental reform is not being considered. On transparency, businesses want not access to their bills online but to understand how calculations are arrived at. On accountability, they want consideration of a single assessor. They also want sectoral equity. Right now, business rates can change as much as threefold between use classes. Why has the Scottish Government rejected a more fundamental review and reform of non-domestic rates? Jenny Gilruth: What I have set out to the Parliament today amounts to significant change in relation to the way in which we currently support our businesses.”
“The Government has prioritised tackling the housing emergency and will continue to do so. Daniel Johnson should look at the progress that his UK Labour Government has made on housing, in Scotland and in the rest of the UK, before he points the finger.”
“Further to Laura Moodie’s question, although we are in the middle of a housing emergency, there was a housing underspend of £98 million, which was 13 per cent of what was budgeted for housing in the 2024-25 budget. That figure equates to more than 1,000 homes, given the number of homes that the Government hopes to build using that funding. Given the context of the housing emergency and the fact that the number of housing completions has dipped below 20,000, what is the minister’s explanation for that shortfall? Hannah Mary Goodlad: When it comes to housing, £75 million relates to capital, with the changes being driven mainly by programme timing changes and demand-led constraints in capital programmes, particularly those on energy efficiency and cladding, as we have heard.”
“I urge his party and the UK Government to review those lines as a matter of urgency.”
“It still means that the Conservatives have spent hundreds of millions of pounds on border checks that are no longer needed, so hundreds of millions of pounds have been thrown away by the Conservatives—backed by Reform, incidentally. However, Mr Johnson’s question raises another point. He is now asking about annual talks on the issue. This process does not end, because Brexit will not end until we rejoin. Therefore, why on earth is the UK Government still backing staying out of the single market and the customs union— membership of which, incidentally, was backed by Labour 10 years ago? I have no idea what successes Mr Johnson sees that the Conservative Party has achieved in that period that have made him change his mind, but I certainly have not changed mine.”
“Would he also acknowledge the benefit with regard to carbon trading? Moreover, would he welcome this summit becoming an annual event, so that we have further such treaties in the future? Stephen Gethins: I thank Mr Johnson not just for his questions but for the spirit in which they were asked. In the spirit of agreement, I note that, when I spoke about a 4 per cent reduction in GDP, I was using quite conservative figures. However, he and I agree that those figures are deeply worrying. The finance secretary is sitting on the front bench with me, and we can just imagine what she could have done for our public services with the money that is being thrown away right now. On Mr Johnson’s other point, I would welcome any progress—I said that to Nick Thomas- Symonds the other day.”
“I thank the minister for advance sight of his statement. It contained much that Scottish Labour agrees with, although we might disagree on some of the constitutional conclusions. Indeed, I might go further than the minister and say that I estimate the damage to GDP from Brexit to be between 6 per cent and 8 per cent, based on many measures. I agree with the minister that our future has to be about a closer alignment and relationship with the European Union. I note his reservations about the forthcoming treaty, but does he acknowledge that the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement will make a substantial difference to farmers and to the food business, not least by eliminating the bill of £200 per consignment for certificates and easing trade across the Irish Sea—to touch on one of the deep ironies of the hard Brexit deal?”
“To ask the Scottish Government what its current estimates are of the cost and timescale required to complete the remaining sections of the A9 dualling programme that are still to be upgraded. (S7O-00091)”
“We must face the simple reality that, whereas guidance on the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 was published only in the past few months, franchising was being brought forward in Manchester within a year of the equivalent legislation in England being passed in 2017. Across England, there is now franchising in Manchester, Liverpool and West Yorkshire, and franchising plans in South Yorkshire and the West Midlands are well advanced.”
“That is why Scottish Labour included a number of transport priorities in our manifesto. In that context, we must look at, for example, dualling the A9, delivering a modern metro system for Glasgow, how we link our cities across Scotland and how we fund route development across the world. We are talking not about conveniences but about fundamental economic links. Franchising, which has been mentioned quite a lot in interventions, is a fundamental and important mechanism for delivering better bus services. It is not an accident that it is used across the world in places such as Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Singapore.”
“There is about a 50 per cent difference in output per hour worked between Edinburgh and either Glasgow or Dundee. Data from Centre for Cities shows that the Glasgow city economy is £7.3 billion smaller per year than it would be if it performed comparably with other similarly sized western European cities. The critical issue is people’s ability to get to and from places where they can get better employment and better wages. Buses are absolutely central to that. According to the Resolution Foundation, in small towns, a 30-minute commute by car connects workers to 20 times more job opportunities than would be available using public transport, and, in core cities, such a commute would connect workers to seven times more job opportunities. We need to address the challenge of providing people with the ability to travel to better employment.”
“There is also the matter of flexible ticketing, which Graham Simpson mentioned, and multimodal ticketing—bluntly, tickets that span trams and buses. How will they be dealt with? Thirdly, and most importantly, as Graham Simpson and Willie Rennie have highlighted, it is all well and good capping bus fares, but there need to be buses available for people to use. The reality is that we have since 2007 lost 1,400 bus routes in Scotland. We need to hear from the Scottish Government how that issue will be addressed, because it cannot be addressed in isolation. A wider point needs to be made. Transport is not just a convenience or a daily function; it is critical to economic growth and a healthy economy. We know that there is a big disparity in productivity across our cities.”
“However, a number of questions need to be answered. First, the cost of the subsidy for long- distance journeys will, inevitably, be higher. For example, in the Highlands and Islands pilot, the £2 fare cap reduced the cost of a fare from Inverness to Wick from £28 to £2. Will all long-distance journeys be covered by the fare cap? If so, what is the projected cost? Secondly, there is a real risk that the fare cap will benefit operators that charge higher fares. First Bus single fares range from £2.45 to £7.10, whereas publicly owned Lothian Buses, which won awards in both 2024 and 2025, has a flat fare of £2.40. It would be not only ironic but downright unfair if a higher subsidy was provided to bus operators that currently charge the public more, with publicly funded services being disadvantaged.”
“I disagree with him on the words that are in the Conservative amendment, because I do not believe that good service is achieved through competition. In the past 40 years, we have seen what competition has delivered: the destruction of services and of availability. Ultimately, it is through public ownership that those things are regained, which is very much the tenor of the amendment that we have lodged. On the Government’s motion, I very much agree with much of what the cabinet secretary said. We have to focus on practical measures that deal with the cost of living, and there is no doubt in my mind that addressing the cost of getting to work and going about daily life is fundamental to that. Labour members will welcome anything, particularly around the bus fares cap, that can contribute to alleviating those pressures.”
“Daniel Johnson: I am happy to give way to Craig Hoy, although I think that I will not agree with him. Craig Hoy: I thank Mr Johnson for taking the intervention and for extolling the virtues of Lothian Buses. My experience as a South Scotland MSP until the election was that, as we go further into the Lothian Buses region and particularly the rural areas beyond Edinburgh, the approval rating drops significantly. Does that speak to the point that we should always look through the lens of rural passengers as well as urban passengers when debating the future of our bus services? Daniel Johnson: We always need to look at the detail and, critically, I agree with Craig Hoy that we need public transport services that provide a service to all people, wherever they live.”
“In 1986—the anniversary for this is in October—Lothian Region Transport was set up as a publicly owned arm’s- length company. There was an attempt to encourage it into the arms of Stagecoach through a management buyout, which was resisted due to the foresight of Labour councillors on Lothian Regional Council. The company’s structure was maintained, and it survived local government reorganisation. I make that point because, although the points that have been made about fare capping are important, we ultimately need a good model that can deliver public services with low fares and good infrastructure, which is what we have in Lothian Buses. It is because of the model—of a publicly owned, arm’s-length company that is run in the interests of public service—that we have those benefits. Craig Hoy: Will the member give way?”
“I am sure that the cabinet secretary is thinking exactly what I am thinking, which is that we should bookmark today’s Official Report, go back in five years’ time and look at Graham Simpson’s contribution to find out what we should have done back then, given his prescience. In all seriousness, I think that Graham Simpson made a lot of sense. In these matters, Edinburgh members go forward with a degree of jeopardy if we extol the virtues of the system that we have here and look quizzically at why other parts of Scotland do not have it. However, the Lothian bus model does require some examination. There are a number of interesting anniversaries this year. In 1926, the Annandale Street bus depot opened, which made possible 12 routes and 43 miles of service spanning the city.”
“[Made a request to intervene.] Stephen Flynn: I can see that Mr Johnson is very keen to welcome that fact. Daniel Johnson: I invite the cabinet secretary to welcome the fact that it was the Scottish Labour- Lib Dem coalition Government that introduced the bus pass for the over-60s—I am sure that he was just about to do so. Stephen Flynn: We are challenging each other now to welcome facts. I notice that he did not do so in respect of the young people’s bus pass. I see that he is now correcting himself—he did.”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the commissioning of a new pre-hospital critical care service for Edinburgh and the east of Scotland. (S7O-00058)”
“The timeline with regard to the court proceedings and the information provided by the Lord Advocate to the Government are serious issues that cannot be investigated or properly examined, in the way that we need to in order to satisfy ourselves and the public, through criminal investigations or investigations by the Electoral Commission or any of the other bodies that have been wheeled out. Above all else, we need to consider the Nolan principles, which I invoked earlier, of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. Are we all confident that, in the events that occurred, those principles were upheld by people who held Government office? If not, we need an inquiry. 16:27”
“Events occurred, but there were denials that there was anything to see just a matter of weeks before police investigations were launched. Members do not have to take my word for it. Roger Mullin, one of the key people concerned, who subsequently resigned, said that Nicola Sturgeon’s statement to the SNP national executive committee was “ridiculous”. He went on: “she was the accountable officer and ultimately responsible. But she turned her face against allowing any proper scrutiny. The way in which she behaved throughout the period was entirely inappropriate from a governance point of view.” That was Roger Mullin, a former MP and member of the SNP NEC, making very serious allegations, which I think raise wider questions. Ultimately, we have wider questions about the separation of power and the exercise of power.”
“The criminal threshold is much higher than the broader threshold that we need to look at, and the scope of the criminal law is very different from that of the wider public interest. Let us also be clear that the issue is about the actions of people holding public office, and some of the most powerful offices in the land. Actions and conduct that occur in one space are not discrete from those in another. It is not good enough to say that it was with regard to people’s party responsibilities that information was withheld, statements were misrepresented or the truth was not forthcoming. We expect people who hold public office to act with integrity and transparency in all their affairs. The reality is that there are serious questions about whether things were misstated and misrepresented while people were in public office.”
“Political parties fundraise, develop policies and co-ordinate political activity, and therefore their conduct has a bearing on the public more widely. Clearly, there has been a breakdown in this particular party in this circumstance, which is why the resignations occurred of individuals who, until that point, had been elected representatives and loyal members of their party. I turn to some of the specific points that have been made. On the points about the prior investigations, let us be clear that, yes, the police did sterling work—they are dedicated and professional—but they are investigating to a different threshold and scope from that of the wider public interest.”
“If there was embezzlement of any size or scale in any organisation, questions would be asked in Parliament. We have a separation of duties through legal entities, because that is a suitable thing to do so that we can organise ourselves. As a consequence of that, we have requirements to disclose and provide information, whether we are running a company, a charity or, indeed, an arm’s- length body. There has been a clear failure of oversight in that regard. In addition, there are questions of conflicts of interest, because—let us be clear—the chief executive and the party leader were married. Political parties are not just private entities or associations; they have wider public duties and roles. We are all here because we were selected by political parties.”
“These are serious matters and there are serious questions. Willie Rennie was absolutely right. I offer this advice to the previous speaker: ad hominem attacks and whataboutery expose the weakness of the SNP’s arguments, if that is all that they can speak to. We have to ask ourselves two simple questions. Do we know all the facts with regard to these events, and is there public interest in having those facts? We do not have all the facts. What is more, there is a clear public interest because, despite Jamie Hepburn’s attempts to suggest otherwise, the conduct of political parties—especially the party of government—has a direct bearing on how public power is exercised in this country. That is why it is important. This would be of public interest regardless of what organisation it was about.”
“Every hour of committee time, every hour of research resource and every hour of attention that is diverted into a parliamentary process that is structurally conflicted is an hour not spent on that work. However, the subject of accountability for serious financial wrongdoing is not one that I wish to shy away from. Accountability, transparency and trust in public and political life matter—”
“Just last week, the Scottish Government brought a debate to the chamber to set out the progress that we have made in improving our national health service and to deliberate on how we can collectively respond to the challenges that remain. Waiting lists in Scotland continue to fall. New out-patient waits of more than a year have decreased for 11 consecutive months, and in- patient and day-case waits have reduced for 15 months in a row. Our plan is delivering for the people of Scotland. Let those be the types of issues that we bring to the chamber to discuss, to question and to debate. This Government is delivering what we promised and what we meant when we said in the election that we would continue to deliver for the people of Scotland. There is much more to be done, and the Parliament has a role in doing that work.”
“We have other plans to reduce the cost of living. We intend to introduce a £2 nationwide cap on bus fares and to increase the Scottish child payment to £40. We will be happy to bring those matters back to the chamber to be subject to scrutiny, just as we brought the issue of the first homes fund to the chamber. The statement on that fund, which was delivered on 27 May, set out that it will open by the end of June and will provide first-time buyers with a £10,000 contribution towards a deposit on their first home. In its first phase, the fund is expected to support 2,000 households in the first 100 days of this Government and 50,000 over the course of this session of Parliament.”
“That includes expanding all-year-round childcare to all children from nine months of age to the end of primary school—[Interruption.] I hear Stephen Kerr saying from the sidelines, as he always does, “Stick to the motion.” I am speaking to my amendment. Let me remind Mr Kerr of what my amendment says. It “urges elected representatives to use their parliamentary time to address matters that will improve the lives of the people of Scotland, including tackling the cost of living crisis, improving public services such as this NHS and taking climate action.” That is what I am speaking to right now. I remind Mr Kerr and other members of our ambition to expand all-year-round childcare to all children from nine months to the end of primary school—the Government brought that issue to the chamber for debate on 27 May.”
“Just yesterday, we brought forward a debate on the need to grow our economy as part of the process of creating a more resilient, more prosperous and fairer Scotland for all. As the First Minister has set out, as part of the process of bringing about a fairer Scotland, it will be the defining mission of this Government to support families with the cost of living and to eradicate child poverty. Our policies are already helping to keep an estimated 100,000 children out of relative poverty this year, but we are determined to do more and to deliver truly ambitious change to reduce the cost of living.”
“They are the lived reality of hundreds of thousands of our constituents, and they demand our sustained attention. On 7 May, the people of Scotland elected a Parliament in the expectation that those would be the types of issues that we would focus on. On 7 May, they chose a Scottish Government that intends to do that and to work for them—a Government that, day in, day out, is always on Scotland’s side. That brings me on to the part of my amendment that focuses on the need for us, collectively, to use our time to address matters that will improve the lives of the people of Scotland, by tackling the cost of living challenges that they face, improving the public services that they use and taking action to save the climate that we all rely on. This Government is firmly focused on what matters most to the people of Scotland.”
“Crucially—and it is important that we remind ourselves of the fact in the context of what may be said as part of today’s debate—we cannot act without the risk of contaminating, complicating or prejudicing the very proceedings that either the independent authorities are concluding or that they may yet have cause to pursue. The people of Scotland who elected us to this Parliament did not send us here to spend our parliamentary time conducting political post- mortems on the internal governance of rival parties. They sent us here to govern and to address—with urgency, competence and purpose—the pressures that are bearing down on their daily lives. Across Scotland today, families are making impossible choices at the supermarket checkout and the kitchen table. Energy bills, food prices and housing costs are not abstractions.”
“Any reasonable assessment would conclude that operation Branchform has been extensive, thorough and conducted by what the chief constable herself described as a team of “very skilled” individuals. It resulted in a charge, a prosecution and a verdict in court. The criminal justice process has done what it was designed to do. If there are further investigative threads still to be pulled, it follows that those threads should be pursued by the bodies with the powers, expertise and, crucially, independence to pursue them properly. This Parliament cannot—and no committee of elected politicians can—replicate those powers or that independence. We could not compel disclosure under the same legal frameworks or assess evidence with the same impartiality.”
“However, does he accept that it is the legitimate role of this Parliament to ask questions on the internal workings of the police service, the Lord Advocate, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, the Electoral Commission, the Scottish Legal Aid Board, HMRC and those who administer Short money and public money? Does he accept that those are legitimate areas for this Parliament to question? Jamie Hepburn: There is a range of means by which any parliamentarian can do that. Anas Sarwar: He is blocking the means. Jamie Hepburn: It is inescapable that the type of inquiry that Mr Sarwar seeks to establish would go into the internal workings of an individual political party. That would not be a good precedent to set.”
“We have institutions that sit independently of political interference and direction, to deliberate and determine the outcome of such matters; the courts serve that role. None of those institutions are beholden to any Government, party or political agenda. That independence is not a bureaucratic nicety—it is the cornerstone of the rule of law. Their independence is as sure a defining characteristic of being part of a free, pluralistic democracy as this freely elected Parliament is. Anas Sarwar: Will the minister take an intervention? Jamie Hepburn: I will give way one more time. Anas Sarwar: I thank the minister for giving way. He has been generous with interventions. I get that the minister will not want questions to be asked about the internal workings of the SNP.”