Official Report 448KB pdf
I ask members leaving the chamber to do so quietly, please.
The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S7M-00180, in the name of Jenny Young, on the 10th anniversary of the death of Jo Cox. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put. I ask members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament acknowledges the 10th anniversary of the death of Jo Cox, who was murdered on 16 June 2016; notes that, until her death, Jo served as the Member of Parliament for Batley and Spen from May 2015; further notes that she was known as a passionate campaigner, activist and humanitarian; understands that her murder prompted a national conversation about the safety and security of elected representatives and the need for greater civility in politics; acknowledges that Jo has left a lasting legacy, including the Jo Cox Foundation, a charity that calls for more respect in politics, and The Great Get Together, an annual nationwide celebration centred on Jo’s message that “we have more in common than that which divides us”; celebrates the work of the Jo Cox Foundation, including the Jo Cox Women in Leadership Programme, which aims to support women in developing their skills and participating fully in public life; acknowledges that, in the decade since Jo’s murder, further acts of violence against elected representatives have occurred, including the murder of Sir David Amess in 2021, and notes the view that, as a new session of the Scottish Parliament begins, all MSPs should commit to fostering a more respectful political culture and remember that they have more in common than that which divides them.
17:47
I thank members from all six parties who added their support to the motion and helped secure tonight’s debate.
I want to start by recognising that, first and foremost, Jo Cox was a daughter, a sister, a wife and a mother, and my thoughts are very much with her family, for whom I am sure that 16 June will always be a difficult day. Loss does not diminish with the passing of time. In recent weeks, I have been in touch with Jo’s sister Kim, and I conveyed my deepest condolences and very best wishes to the family. I hope that this debate will be a fitting tribute from this place in Jo’s memory.
Jo Cox’s career was defined by her humanitarian work, whether at Oxfam—as head of policy and advocacy in the United Kingdom, which included working on the make poverty history campaign, and later as head of Oxfam International’s humanitarian campaigns in New York—or in the UK Parliament, where she established the friends of Syria all-party parliamentary group and advocated for the Syrian people and an end to the civil war. Fittingly, her final questions in Parliament focused on protecting children in conflict.
On 16 June 2016, Jo was shot and stabbed outside a library in her Batley and Spen constituency, where she was due to hold a surgery. Her death shocked the nation, and tributes to her poured in. In the aftermath of her death, changes were made to better ensure the safety of MPs and their staff, with enhanced security measures for MPs and changes to how surgeries were advertised and conducted.
Then, in 2021, Sir David Amess MP was tragically killed while conducting a constituency surgery. My thoughts are with Sir David’s family today, too. There is certainly more to be done to protect elected representatives and their staff, while also recognising the risks inherent in aspects of the job that we all do and in many of the public-facing jobs in our society.
The Jo Cox Foundation was established by Jo’s friends and family after her death, to champion the ideals that Jo spent her working life fighting for. Through the Jo Cox civility commission, the foundation works to create a safe and respectful democracy by challenging the abuse and intimidation of elected representatives. In February, the commission published the report “A Renewed Call to Action for the Devolved Nations”, and I encourage members across the chamber to read its findings.
The foundation also advocates for building stronger communities through the great get together, an annual celebration that sees communities across the UK coming together for a range of events, from park runs and litter picking to picnics. I will be hosting a great get together event next Tuesday lunchtime here in the Parliament, and I hope to see many members there.
Jo was also a powerful advocate for women’s involvement in our labour movement, serving as chair of the Labour Women’s Network from 2011 to 2015. The Jo Cox women in leadership programme is a mentoring and training programme for women in the Labour Party that was established in memory of Jo to continue that important work alongside the Labour Women’s Network, and I am pleased to say that graduates of the programme include my Scottish Labour colleagues Katherine Sangster and Carol Mochan. As a result of the programme, hundreds of Labour women have stood for election, led in their communities and campaigned for change. I cannot think of a more fitting legacy than that for a woman such as Jo.
In the days leading up to this debate, many people have asked whether our political discourse has improved in the decade since Jo’s death. I believe that, if anything, our politics has become more divided, and more entrenched as us versus them. In his book, “Why We’re Polarized”, the American commentator and journalist Ezra Klein explains how political affiliation in America has become one of many signifiers of identity or belonging that are stacked on top of so many others that to cross sides from one party to the other becomes virtually impossible.
Although our political context might be quite different from that of the United States, it strikes me that the growing prominence of identity politics in our country—of tribes, teams and groups—has hardened those dividing lines. People become not just politically opposed, but “enemies”, “traitors” and “threats to society”. The growing influence of social media—and of the bad actors who control and manipulate those platforms—has certainly fuelled the culture of outrage and conflict that dominates public discourse and media today.
I thank the member for giving way—she is giving a very fine speech and tribute to Jo Cox.
Has she been struck, in recent days, by what has been revealed by the BBC about the firebomb attacks that were made on the UK Prime Minister by another state? The purpose of those attacks was to divide people in Britain, and exploit the existing divisions, including through social media accounts online. That is a prime example of how the weakness in our political discourse can result in direct harm to our country.
I thank the member for that intervention, and I absolutely agree with him. We all need to be wise to the fact that there are outside influences, and indeed other nations, who intend us harm and are seeking to disrupt and influence our discourse. The point is certainly well made.
At the start of this session of Parliament, there have been warm words from many members across the chamber about the need to work together to cross political divides in the national interest, and so show people who are disaffected and disillusioned with politics that this place can be a force for good and can deliver tangible change in their lives. I whole-heartedly agree with those sentiments, but I wonder how long any of those lofty intentions will last before they are swallowed up in the day-to-day cut and thrust of political intrigue and partisan conflict.
Too often, this place has failed in its duties to deliver genuine, principled scrutiny of Government—something on which our very democracy depends. The Government deserves to get a hard time from me and all other back-bench members, but we need to find a way of interacting and working in this place that does not extinguish the humanity of the individual whom we are questioning or, in the case of members of the Government, the individual whose question they are answering.
That means saying what we mean and meaning what we say, letting our yes be a yes and our no be a no. It means that we need to have the humility—not something that politicians are often blessed with—to admit when we have gone too far, and to extend grace to others when they do the same. Not every one of us will manage that, and certainly not every day.
I thank Jenny Young for taking my intervention, and I want to echo Michael Marra’s comments—it is an exceptional speech. She has drawn attention to how difficult this anniversary is for Jo Cox’s family.
I had the privilege of working very closely with Jo’s sister, Kim Leadbeater, in the previous session of Parliament, and I found her to be someone who exemplified precisely what Jenny Young has been talking about. I not only put on record my thoughts for Kim and the family at this time, but highlight her as an example of how we can tackle difficult issues in a way that does not cut across our need to be humane in how we conduct our politics.
I thank Liam McArthur for that intervention and pay tribute to him for the way in which, in the previous session, he led the debate on assisted dying. That was another fine example of what we are talking about.
As I have said, not all of us will manage to take the approach that I set out, and certainly not every day. It requires making a choice to be respectful and honour the other. I know that I will need help to keep doing that over the next five years, especially on the hard days, when I feel cynical and when opposing forces are pressing in. However, if we genuinely want things to be better, we each have to try.
Before I entered politics, I was a secondary school French teacher in West Lothian. My former pupils will tell you that I had high standards for behaviour—they might describe it a little more colourfully than that. Respect was the watchword of my classroom: respect for ourselves and respect for each other.
Let that be the mantra of this place, of this session and of our national discourse. Let us honour the memory of Jo Cox by remembering that, as she said,
“we are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 675.]
I inform the chamber that, understandably, very many members wish to speak in tonight’s debate. I intend to let everyone in, given the number of friends and colleagues of Jo who are in the chamber this evening.
17:56
I start by paying tribute to Jenny Young and thanking her for securing this debate. Members’ business motions often talk about celebrating something, but the topic of this debate is clearly not something that we want to celebrate; rather, it is something that we want to mark, and we want to do so with a degree of solemnity, for the sake of Jo’s family.
I served in Westminster from 2017 onwards, so I was not in the same intake as Jo, who entered Parliament in 2015. However, she entered Parliament alongside my other half, who is an English Labour MP—which, by the way, has really taken cross-party working to a new level, and is not something that would recommend to everybody—and I have also had the pleasure and privilege of serving alongside Jo’s sister, Kim, who was referred to by Mr McArthur earlier. She epitomised what was clearly a family value of being kind and compassionate.
When I arrived at Westminster in 2017, I made quite a deliberate decision. As somebody who had joined a political party at the age of 11 and was incredibly tribal, I made a very deliberate decision to spend time with other parliamentarians. This is the first time that I have spoken about it, but I used to play tennis on a Wednesday morning with Kim Leadbeater—Jo’s sister—David Mundell and Sir Desmond Swayne. It would be fair to say that, other than our terrible lack of ability when it came to tennis, there was very little that united us in our politics. However, we could put that to one side, and that is something that we need to learn to do an awful lot more.
Ms Young is absolutely right to touch on Jo’s legacy. The things that she espoused in terms of tackling loneliness and isolation are incredibly important, and in that respect, I want to touch on what I refer to as my gap years between Westminster and the Scottish Parliament, which were important for me in reflecting on how I behaved as a legislator and as a politician. During that two-year period, I worked for the Good Faith Partnership, as I have noted in my register of interests. One of the things that I was involved in was the warm welcome campaign, which was set up to deal with loneliness and isolation in our communities. On one of the first visits that I undertook as an MSP, I had the privilege of visiting my own parish church, St Paul the Apostle, which has a warm welcome hub. I encourage all members to seek out and visit its local warm welcome space to see how loneliness and isolation, the very issues that Jo Cox campaigned on, are being tackled.
Recently, I saw a documentary that dealt with the Dunblane massacre that took place 30 years ago. I was struck by the fact that Lord Robertson and Michael Forsyth appeared together in the documentary. They sat and reflected on how they, as Secretary of State for Scotland and shadow secretary of state, handled the situation back in 1996. I thought that it was very unusual to see a Labour and a Conservative politician sitting alongside each other talking about something that united them. However, it was a sad moment, because the thing that united them was grief: George Robertson lived in Dunblane and his kids went to that school, and Michael Forsyth was the local MP. It struck me that we have probably lost something in terms of how we conduct our politics.
I mentioned earlier the two years that I spent away from politics. The electorate are never wrong, and that two-year period gave me the ability to think about how, if I were to go back into politics, I would want to contribute to Parliament and legislate. I reflected that, in the seven years that I was at Westminster, there were occasions on which I would go for the jugular; indeed, I would sometimes make a two-footed tackle against Stephen Kerr. However, in coming to this place, I have made a conscious decision that I want to contribute a bit more thoughtfully—although there will be occasions when I will get it wrong.
I want to end on this point, because I picked up on the slight biblical reference that Ms Young made earlier. For me, a lot of what we are talking about comes back to the language that we use. In the first few weeks of this session, I have been slightly concerned about some of the language that I have heard in the chamber. I am not going to name individuals, because that will not help, but my plea to all members is to be slightly mindful of the language that is used in here. As I seek to do that, I will certainly take with me the verses in James, chapter 3, on taming the tongue.
18:00
I thank Jenny Young for securing the debate.
I remember hearing the news about Jo’s death as I was driving home from work. At that point, I was not involved in politics. It seemed an unspeakably shocking thing to have happened here, in a democratic country. She was killed while doing her job, meeting constituents who needed her help on the streets of the community that she represented. Jo’s murder shocked the Labour family and the nation. I never met Jo, but her legacy and the determination of her friends and colleagues to honour her memory helped to propel me here today.
Jo was a passionate feminist who worked tirelessly to maximise women’s voices in politics and public life. As Jenny Young mentioned, she was elected chair of the Labour Women’s Network, leading the organisation from 2011 until she became an MP in 2015. Following her death, the Jo Cox women in leadership programme was established to continue that work by investing in a generation of Labour women to ensure that they had the skills, the confidence and the network to become leaders and to support others in doing the same. In 2018, I was fortunate to become part of cohort 2 of the programme.
The programme’s influence extends far beyond elected office. Jo Cox graduates are encouraged not only to seek leadership roles themselves but to support and mentor other women, which reflects Jo’s belief in collective leadership and opening doors for others. The programme gave me practical skills and helped me to think about what kind of feminist I wanted to be. Most importantly, it gave me a group of friends who were determined to hold me up and push me onwards. Nineteen graduates have gone on to become MPs, and two graduates are now MSPs: Carol Mochan and me. Others have taken up leadership roles in trade unions, charities, public services and community organisations.
However, the programme’s greatest achievement is not the positions that its graduates hold but the community that it has created: an army of feminists working for equality, supporting one another to succeed and never knowing our place. As graduates, we carry around in our heads the voice of the legendary Nan Sloane, the Labour Women’s Network’s training lead:
“Get in the room, take up the space, take politics seriously and never apologise for yourself.”
I promise Nan that I am trying.
We are making progress, and this is a legacy that we should all be proud of. However, sadly, a decade after Jo’s death, we continue to live in a world that often feels angrier, more divided and more polarised. It is worth stating that that is why remembering Jo really matters.
As I said, I never met Jo, but I believe that the best way to honour her memory is to stand against hatred, to reject those who seek to divide us and to do the hard work of always trying to find what we have in common. At times, in this place, that may feel hard, but it is a legacy worth carrying forward.
18:03
I thank Jenny Young for lodging the motion and for the chance, on the 10th anniversary of Jo Cox’s death, to allow ourselves a moment of pause. Grief is a drowning heaviness. It is also, I believe, something that warrants action. Before I get to the rest of tonight’s debate, it is worth being specific about what we are marking today.
Jo Cox’s record was wider than the one line that we often quote on the anniversary of her death, that
“we are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us.”
In her maiden speech, in June 2015, she said:
“Our communities have been deeply enhanced by immigration”.—[Official Report, House of Commons, 3 June 2015; Vol 596, c 675.]
In April 2016, backing Lord Dubs’s amendment on child refugees, she said:
“Who can blame desperate parents for wanting to escape the horror”?—[Official Report, House of Commons, 25 April 2016; Vol 596, c 1235.]
She helped to write a 2015 Labour friends of Palestine report calling for the Gaza blockade to be lifted. In February 2016, she opposed curbs on boycotting Israeli firms over the occupation, saying that
“It is our right to boycott unethical companies.”
As other members have noted, she was the chair of the Labour Women’s Network and is remembered for saying that she had gone into politics partly because only 23 per cent of the House of Commons was female. On 3 February 2016, she signed an early day motion marking LGBT history month and welcomed the legal gains of the past two decades.
None of that represents the soft, safe version of Jo Cox that we often repeat every June. It was specific. It took sides. Some of it was uncomfortable, even within her own party. Ten years on, the line that we repeat—rightly—about what we have in common should unsettle us as much as it comforts us.
The motion is honest about what has not changed. As has been mentioned, Sir David Amess was murdered in 2021, and the threats against elected representatives have become so routine that we now build entire protocols around something as ordinary as a constituency surgery.
The motion has been signed by members from every party in this chamber, and I do not think we should just wave that away as being a nice gesture, because every member who signed the motion echoes Jo Cox’s moral fortitude, her courage and her ability to know that standing with the marginalised is not political performance but decency. It is easy to vote for a sentence about having more in common, but it is far harder to square that with the hate that others people and isolates communities that are begging for love and care.
Jo Cox’s family have said this week that what troubles them now is not disagreement but the way that disagreement curdles into language that, as David Linden touched on, stops acknowledging the other side as people, language that corrupts the beauty of the word “local” into a hostile and alien phrase and language that seeks to convince us that some of us are less welcome here, less human than other people. That is the gap between the motion and the vote, and it is the gap that this Parliament will be judged on long after tonight’s debate is forgotten. The slide that we are seeing right now is gradual, and I believe that it is reversible, but only if we choose deliberately to reverse it.
Today, therefore, I want to remember Jo Cox with the full beauty of her being. I want to remember that she was Batley and Spen born and bred, and proud of it. I want to remember her relentless campaigning on creating safe civilian havens in Syria and the words that she used in the last two questions that she lodged in Parliament, which echoed her belief that our country could exercise the privileges and powers that we hold to do good for people regardless of borders or race.
I also remember what her killer shamefully yelled when he killed her. After her murder, Jo Cox’s husband said in a statement that we must
“fight against the hatred that killed her”,
and I do not believe we can fight that hatred unless we know what it is to start with.
I support the motion whole-heartedly, and I hope that every member who signed it means it for more than just tonight, so that, the next time this chamber has a chance to act on what divides us and we speak as if we have more in common with one another than that which divides us, we actually vote like it as well.
18:07
I thank Jenny Young for bringing this debate to the chamber. It is an immense privilege to have the opportunity to speak to the motion. I refer to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which notes my roles in the national health service and as a member of Renfrewshire Council.
I have reflected a lot on the issue that we are discussing. I do not want to simply read out a written speech, as there have been many eloquent speakers who are far better at doing the written speeches thing than I am. However, I will say that, yesterday, while I was walking my dog, who does not walk far nowadays, I was thinking about the collaborative working that I have done over my 20 years in the NHS and nine years as a councillor in a minority administration. I had a lot of respect for fellow councillors across the parties. At the count at which I was elected, the first people who came bouncing up to me and gave me a hug were Labour councillors. I have known those people for a long time and have a lot of personal respect for them.
People gift us this opportunity to represent them, and the political make-up of representatives is bound to change as society changes and things influence us. However, the opportunity that we have in that democratic society should never be underestimated. In that regard, I think of my family’s personal journey. I am the proud daughter and granddaughter of refugees who had to flee Idi Amin’s dictatorship. They came here with one suitcase and one family photograph. Those are the things that genuinely matter and that people take for granted. Being part of a democratic system in which I am able to speak openly and am trusted to represent my communities is something that I will never take for granted. I am lucky in that I have been able to give back to society in a way that enables me to say thank you for those opportunities and for the safety that was granted to me and my family.
However, there is an onus on us all with regard to how we conduct ourselves in this chamber and outside it. The freedom to express ourselves and the right to speak freely come with responsibilities. One of the most impressive moments in the previous parliamentary session was the way in which members conducted themselves in the debates around the right to die. At that time, people in my life who are not that political were, all of a sudden, really engaged in and enthused by politics and talked about their opinions in a really respectful way, and that respect was reciprocal. There was no thrashiness about those conversations, even though people felt very passionately on both sides or were very confused in the middle of it all. That says a lot about the way that discussions were held in the previous session.
When people have disengaged from politics and do not turn out to vote, the question is, how can we bring people back together? This is how we do it—through the way that we conduct ourselves and open up those conversations. It is all very well to have resources like the participation and communities team, who will go out into our communities and actively engage with people, but the way that we conduct ourselves here is the foundation for that effort.
I really want us to reflect on that today. It is not just about being mindful of what we say here; it is also about the overall impact that that will have. Where we have influence, there is also consequence. The issue is to do with how the words that we utter can be interpreted. I ask members to be mindful of that when they are making points in this chamber and outside it. It is important that we foster a culture of integrity, mutual respect and reflection on our own conduct and that we think about how our conduct will be seen by those around us. By showing compassion, gratitude and consideration in our delivery, we can create a culture that enables our society at large to have pride in our national Parliament. That is something that we should all strive for.
18:11
Jenny Young made an outstanding speech. Undoubtedly, she is a rising talent in the Labour Party—and quite rightly so.
It is a privilege to be able to participate in this debate. Jo Cox was murdered by a far-right extremist, and Sir David Amess, my friend—I should say “our friend”, as he was a friend to everybody—was murdered by Islamist extremism. Those ideologies are different, but the result is the same. Both were acts of pure evil. Both were attacks on democracy. Both were attacks on the principle that political differences are settled through debate, persuasion and the ballot box rather than through intimidation, hatred and violence. The deaths of Jo Cox and Sir David Amess remind us that our democracy is precious but also fragile.
Those of us who enter public life do so knowing that we will, rightly, be scrutinised, criticised and challenged. That is part of the job. However, what none of us should ever have to accept is abuse, threats or fear. We are supposed to disagree in this Parliament—and I make my own contribution to that end. If we stop disagreeing, we stop doing our jobs, because robust disagreement is the lifeblood of our democracy. However, there is a world of difference between robust disagreement and hatred.
We would be kidding ourselves if we pretended that the tone of our politics has not deteriorated. Social media can be a powerful force for good, but too often it can become a sewer. I do not pretend to know the solution, but it cannot be healthy that anonymous individuals—sometimes bad actors from foreign states who do not live anywhere near these shores—can hide themselves behind false identities and spread hatred, misinformation and abuse with little consequence. The effect that that is having on our democracy is undoubtedly discouraging good people from entering public life, and that worries me. It places enormous pressure on those who are already serving, and that pressure falls particularly heavily on women in politics, many of whom are subject to levels of personal abuse that are utterly reprehensible.
What genuinely distresses me is the extent to which some of the most toxic of voices online are indulged, amplified and even sometimes legitimised by people who should know better. We all know the anonymous accounts that I am talking about. They trade in personal abuse, conspiracy theories and outright falsehoods. None of us should be encouraging that culture, and none of us should be giving it oxygen.
When I think of Jo Cox, I think of the words that have been mentioned already, which, I grant, are oft-quoted. She said that
“we are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 3 June 2015; Vol 596, c 675.]
Those words are not just a slogan; they are a challenge to recognise our common humanity and to build stronger communities. That spirit lives on through the Jo Cox Foundation, which has focused on strengthening communities, encouraging respectful politics and tackling loneliness.
I was greatly impressed by the work that was conducted on a joint-party basis by Rachel Reeves and Seema Kennedy, who united in the memory of Jo to ensure that loneliness was finally recognised as a serious challenge that society faces. Theresa May, in fact, had a minister for loneliness, in recognition of the great social harm that loneliness inflicts on us as a community. Jo understood something important. Too many people, particularly older people, live lives of profound isolation. Some go days, weeks or sometimes longer without any meaningful contact with another human being. That is why community matters and why belonging matters.
Jo Cox’s message was that we have more in common than that which divides us. Sir David Amess embodied that same belief through his kindness, accessibility and commitment to his constituents. At a time when our politics can feel increasingly fractious and toxic, the lessons from those individuals are worth remembering and taking into our own service as public servants.
18:16
I am pleased to speak in today’s debate and I thank Jenny Young for bringing it to the chamber. It is a privilege to follow on from some fantastic speeches in the Parliament.
It is fitting that we are holding this debate in memory of Jo Cox so early in the parliamentary session. As many people have said, with so many new MSPs, we have a rare opportunity to change the tone of how we do politics, both in this chamber and in Scottish politics as a whole. The anniversary of Jo Cox’s tragic death a decade ago provides a sobering reminder of how important it is that each of us holds ourselves to the highest standards and follows her example of service, compassion and unity.
In the days after Jo was killed, as more people learned about who she was and what she stood for, I remember that a friend told me that she had spent a long time looking for a political figure she could look up to and hope to emulate, and that she had finally found one. Her only regret was that she had not had the chance to follow Jo’s work when she was alive. However, we can all follow her example. We should also support the work of the Jo Cox Foundation, particularly its efforts to encourage more women to participate in public life.
If you engage in politics solely through social media, you could be forgiven for thinking that public life and politics are defined entirely by toxicity. I am happy to report that, when you get out and meet real people, that is not often the case. When you knock on doors, although people may not agree with you or may not like your political party, and although they may even be a bit—or more than—sceptical of politicians in general, most people engage respectfully. That has certainly been my experience, and I sincerely hope that it has been the experience of members across the chamber.
However, we all know that there are dark corners of social media where the opposite is true: places where hatred and abuse are directed at political representatives, candidates and campaigners, particularly women and those from minority backgrounds. Misogynistic abuse and threats of safety were among the top reasons that female MSPs cited for standing down before May’s election. That is deeply damaging to the health of our democracy, and it is easy to see why it has become increasingly difficult to encourage good people to get involved in politics.
I believe passionately in the right of everyone to express their views freely, robustly and with vigour, but that gives nobody the right to be abusive or threatening. Nor do I believe that those same rights extend to enormous social media companies. Too often, they have failed to tackle deeply toxic content and, in some cases, they seem to reward and amplify exactly the sort of behaviour that poisons public debate and that can lead to violence. In reflecting on Jo Cox’s legacy today, we should also consider how those very powerful organisations can be properly held to account.
I applaud the work of the Jo Cox Foundation in tackling loneliness, which remains a great epidemic in our society. Its great get together initiative, as Jenny Young mentioned, recognises the immense power of simply spending time together in healing divisions and helping people to feel less alone. That message feels every bit as relevant today as it did when Jo championed it.
I will do my very best to follow that example in my own work as an MSP and in the communities that I feel privileged to represent. I believe, as others have said, that the best tribute that we can pay to Jo Cox is not simply to remember her words but to reflect them in how we conduct ourselves in the Parliament and in our roles in public life over the years ahead.
Before moving to our next speaker, who will be Patricia Gibson, I am minded to accept a motion without notice, under rule 8.14.3, to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes. I invite Jenny Young to move the motion.
Motion moved,
That, under rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Jenny Young]
18:20
I join others in congratulating Jenny Young on securing this evening’s debate to commemorate the political contribution of Jo Cox and to pay tribute to her legacy.
I was a member of the UK Parliament on the day that Jo Cox was killed. I was out visiting a secondary school that I had been working in right up until the election in May 2015. The school was not in my constituency; I was visiting former colleagues who were keen to catch up and pupils with whom I had built good relationships, and they had loads of questions about my life as an MP. It was a happy visit, with laughter, anecdotes and memories of my time with staff and pupils, which had ended on the day that the Scottish National Party swept into Westminster on a wave of support, the scale of which no one had predicted.
That day, I was in the class with my former secondary 2 pupils, and the teacher had been discussing how Westminster operates. He had played a clip, and as the clip ended, the television reverted to live broadcast. The news flashed up that an MP had been seriously injured following an attack, and the children’s levity came very abruptly to an end. Everybody was really shocked. For the children, it had been a very interesting visit from a former teacher who now seemed to have quite an exciting job, which then became a visit from a former teacher who now had what they perceived to be a really dangerous job.
Even from the initial reports, it seemed impossible to imagine—despite the deranged attack on Jo Cox and what she suffered—that she would not come through it. We certainly all hoped and prayed that she would. It was a very sombre time in the Commons when we reconvened the following Monday. All we could think about was, how could this happen? What does it say about the political climate in which we live? Inevitably, we wondered which one of us would be next.
Like many in the SNP group, Jo Cox had been elected only the preceding year, and, like many of us, she was still finding her feet and had been taken by surprise at the ferocious hatred that was being spouted out on social media platforms, where good intentions are twisted and misrepresented. It is a digital town square, complete with digital pitchforks, to attack and abuse anyone—especially politicians, but not just politicians—who raises their head even slightly above the parapet. We knew that it was only a matter of time before another such attack took place—and it did subsequently, claiming the life of David Amess, a long-standing MP who was respected and admired across the house.
I recall the five-year anniversary of Jo’s death and how her sister, Kim Leadbeater MP, led a debate in the House of Commons to celebrate her sister’s life and legacy while continuing to fight for the values that cost Jo Cox her life. Kim’s speech on that day, witnessed by her and Jo’s parents, was moving, inspiring, powerful and memorable. Ten years on, with two MPs murdered in the line of duty and countless others abused and subjected to intimidating tactics on social media, it is a good time to take stock of where we are, because politics has become increasingly divided by extremism. That is bad enough, but in that particular context we must all be more mindful of the language that we use and how we debate and interact with each other.
People often blame the nastiness that is spouted on the influence of social media. Members have done that today, and I completely understand why. However, I say this: social media does not operate in a vacuum. It gives me no pleasure to say that, sadly, some elements of the media need to have a care about their contribution to the creation in our virtual town squares of digital stocks and pitchforks that are increasingly the norm on social media. We all know that words—outpourings—can move or motivate others into deadly action. I say that because, when I was in the House of Commons, I did not meet one MP—not one—who had not suffered at least one death threat or a threat of some kind of physical harm. That is a terrible thing to say. When elected representatives in democratic nations are attacked and killed for their beliefs, it is our democratic values that are being attacked. Those values are too precious to lose without challenge from those of us who hold them dear.
The vast majority of elected representatives are in politics to stand up for ideals and better the lives of those we seek to represent. That is it. That is all. However, in some sections of the mainstream media, our motives are constantly questioned, our efforts constantly belittled and our visions constantly undermined through language that is nasty and excoriating, and that is the backdrop against which social media exists. To all politicians in this place and in all our democratic institutions, to everyone involved in the media—whether it be social, print or television—and to all those involved in the political process, I say that we should have a care with regard to how we speak to and about each other.
In this chamber and in wider society, we need to relearn how to disagree respectfully and not assume the worst of someone just because we disagree with their politics. Let us try to heal our politics, so that extremism cannot flourish.
You must conclude.
Today, we pay tribute to Jo Cox, who is often quoted as saying that there is more that unites us than divides us. Truly, if we could remember that and live with that in mind, whatever our roles in life are, our more respectful politics will have a strong basis on which to survive and thrive.
Earlier, I omitted to put the question on the motion to extend the debate, so I will put it now. Do members agree to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes?
Motion agreed to.
18:27
I thank my colleague Jenny Young for bringing this important and thoughtful debate to the chamber.
I did not know Jo Cox, but I was privileged to meet many people who did. I attended the first Jo Cox women in leadership programme just a year after Jo was killed and found out that Jo was a kind, patient person who had spent most of her career working with those in need here in the UK and across the world. I learned that Jo had an ambition for a fairer and more just world, and I think that tonight’s debate, at a time when some seek to stoke division and hate, is a reminder that we can always choose to take a kinder and more compassionate path.
As others have noted, in her maiden speech to Parliament, Jo poetically said:
“we are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 675.]
Last night, I spent a long time thinking about what I should speak about in the debate. I asked myself, what do the words in that quote make me—us—think?
Scotland’s story is one of immigration and emigration. Over the centuries, many people from across the world have come to Scotland, shaping our heritage and embracing our traditions. Similarly, Scots have emigrated across the world at times of hardship to find work or to be with family members who have set up new lives and homes in other parts of the world.
As I think of the events of last week, when we witnessed violence and bigotry on our streets and in my region of Ayr, which was a shock, I feel that tonight’s debate commemorating the memory of Jo Cox could not have come at a more important time.
Who are we, if we do not care about the people around us? Who are we, if our first thought is not to smile when we hear children chattering in a playground, and see children from many cultures enjoying playing and learning from one another? It should give us great joy to see that.
The attack on Jo was motivated by far-right political thinking and was fuelled by prejudice and hate. On the 10th anniversary of Jo’s death, my thoughts go out to her family and friends, and to everyone who has been impacted by that attack. I also pay tribute to Sir David Amess and send my thoughts to his family and friends, some of whom are in the chamber tonight.
I am saddened that Jo’s husband, Brendan, feels that the balance is shifting back in the wrong direction. We know that Jo’s lasting legacy, including the work of the Jo Cox Foundation, has improved individual experiences in politics, in particular for women, and has helped to create a wider societal debate about how we conduct ourselves in politics and the importance of prioritising kindness and collaboration over hate and hostility. This is a pivotal moment, and it would be wrong for that shift to reverse and to go in the wrong direction.
Every one of us in the Parliament has a moral responsibility to challenge the behaviour of those who use divisive rhetoric—as other members have said, our words matter. We know that those who use words of division serve only their own political interests; those words in fact damage our communities and public trust in institutions that wish only to serve.
I again thank Jenny Young for bringing the debate to Parliament to commemorate Jo’s memory on the 10th anniversary of her death. I also thank members who seek to serve in the way that Jo Cox would have done, had she been given the opportunity. That is how we should honour her legacy.
18:31
I, too, congratulate Jenny Young on bringing the debate to the chamber. I had not originally intended to speak in the debate; I wanted just to sit in and listen. However, I was deeply troubled by the report in The Herald at the weekend, about threats to and harassment of parliamentary colleagues, and in particular by the briefings that we have received on the vicious and misogynistic abuse that is aimed at women, especially online.
I was in the chamber on the day when Jo Cox was murdered, and I remember the feeling of collective horror that swept through as we became aware of what had happened. I also remember how we all committed to doing better, and to ensuring the greater respect that the motion calls for and conducting ourselves appropriately.
That is why I want to make two points about debate in the chamber, which build on Jenny Young’s excellent contribution. The first concerns how we speak to, and about, one another. Last Wednesday, there was an afternoon debate that I use simply as an example. The subject matter was always going to be difficult and uncomfortable for some in the chamber, which is as it should be. Politics should not be comfortable—we should always debate, and we should confront and speak about difficult topics. However, I sat through that debate and listened to the contributions, and afterwards I pulled up the Official Report, just to have a look and ensure that I was not misremembering what I had heard.
Several contributions went far beyond what could be called robust debate. Members know that I like robust debate, but that was not it. Given the very personal, targeted and choreographed nature of some of the contributions, I felt that they were wholly inappropriate. I have researched, and written extensively on, debating, and the abusive, ad hominem attack is widely recognised as presenting a logical fallacy. An argument’s truth or validity must stand on its own merits, regardless of who is making it, and it should be debated accordingly.
My point is that, even leaving aside the fact that such personal targeting represents weak debating, what we do and what we say about one another in the chamber matters—as Patricia Gibson reminded us in what I felt was a powerful contribution—because people are watching. If those on social media in particular see and hear us indulging in that sort of targeted personal abuse, I think that emboldens, empowers and encourages them to dish out exactly the sort of personal bile with which we are all too familiar, in particular directed at certain groups, with the consequences that Adam Harley highlighted in his excellent contribution.
My second point is a related one that builds on something raised by David Linden. We are sent here to debate difficult topics. In the previous session of Parliament we rightly confronted difficult and polarising issues, as I predict we will do in this one, too. Many of the propositions and debates will be uncomfortable, as they should be. Again, we must not forget that people out there are watching and that what we say has an impact.
We have a duty to speak not only honestly but accurately. As Michelle Campbell reminded us, the words that we use have meaning. When a topic is already polarised or has real consequences for how people think that it is appropriate to behave or speak, or on what lines to divide, it is more important than ever that we are as careful in our use of language as we are in addressing one another. It is vital that, in such debates—particularly those that are contentious—we ensure that the words that we use are accurate and precise and that they have the meaning that is intended.
I am casting stones, yet I am far from without sin. I have no doubt that there are people out there—perhaps even in this chamber—trolling my social media right now, looking for examples of situations where I have not met my own standards. Maybe they will find something—in which case, sure, I will be seen as a hypocrite, they will win and I will be subjected to derision online. However, as Jenny Young’s motion asks of me, I will try to do better. I will try to foster a more respectful political culture to achieve the standards that Jo Cox called for. I hope that all MSPs will join me in that aspiration.
18:36
I thank Jenny Young for bringing this important motion to the chamber. There have been important, heartfelt and moving contributions in the debate so far.
Above all, I pay tribute and my respects to the late Jo Cox. I did not know her personally, but I feel as though I did, having listened to members’ remarks today and having read a lot about the great work that she contributed. On the 10th anniversary of her death, I recognise her dedicated work as a campaigner, activist and humanitarian, and her deep commitment to her community, which comes over loud and clear. I echo what everyone has said about her horrific and tragic death in 2016. I pay respect to her family—my deep thoughts are with them—and to the family of Sir David Amess, who, tragically, also suffered a horrific death.
Jo’s legacy continues through the Jo Cox Foundation. We have heard lots of really good contributions on that. We know that she wanted to build stronger communities and a safe and respectful democracy, while also tackling loneliness. Her lasting message has been mentioned. Jo said that we
“have far more in common than that which divides us.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 3 June 2015; c 675.]
We can all learn something especially important from that message and apply it to our politics—not just say that we will do it, but do it. Jo campaigned passionately for promoting a kinder and more compassionate politics, with mutual respect. We can bring that to the Scottish Parliament, as a starting point.
Since I was elected, it has been clear to me that there is work to do to make our politics more respectful, civil and courteous. As elected politicians, we have an absolute duty to lead by example. We often speak about honesty, integrity and respect, but our actions do not always reflect those values. That must change.
Each of us brings different perspectives and ideas to our debates. As we have just heard, if we listen with respect and understanding, we can build stronger relationships, work more constructively together and set a better example to our communities. When we have open and honest discussion, we can learn and grow. We might not always agree, but we can put aside our differences and, as we have said, focus on what unites us and our shared hopes, values and aspirations for communities in our country.
As we know from Jo Cox’s death, safety is very important, and it is something that she also spoke about. As we have heard in the debate, words are powerful so we should be mindful of how we use language in order not to jeopardise the safety of others.
Democracy and fairness should always be at the heart of our politics and society. Let us embrace our differences, recognise one another’s strengths and work towards stronger communities in which we all belong and everyone can thrive. Let us honour Jo’s memory and build better politics for us all—politics in which every voice matters and we can build up our bridges. When we come together, anything is possible.
18:40
I, too, congratulate Jenny Young on bringing the debate to the Parliament. It is one of the first members’ business debates that we have held in this session, and this is a great topic to discuss.
I will say a few words about my reflections on the debate and the tone of politics in Scotland today. What has come through in the debate is that everyone has said that we need to be more respectful. As David Linden said, we need to watch our language. That really matters, and it matters across the Parliament—I am speaking to every member. We all need to watch what we say to and about one another, because it can have an impact on people. If members are in a debate and lobbing grenades at individuals or parties, they should think about the effect that that might have on those individuals or the parties, and also what the effect might be outside the Parliament.
Patricia Gibson said that all the MPs that she knows have had death threats, which is quite a stark point. I have never had a death threat—I have never even been threatened—but I had some nasty things said about me when I switched parties, and I felt under threat, so I needed to take some security measures, which I did not want to do. That is what I mean when I say that we should watch what we say about people, and we all need to do that.
I am aware that some MSPs—not all, but maybe a handful—have had death threats. Where does the motivation for that that come from? I think that it comes from the language that we use, perhaps on social media, which is why we need to be careful. My plea to all of us is this: yes, we should remember Jo Cox and Sir David Amess, but we should also learn from those experiences.
Over the next five years, let us do what was suggested by Liam Kerr and Stephen Kerr—the two Kerrs, who are both good friends of mine. Actually, when I look around the chamber, I see people in all parties whom I get on with and respect. I think that, over the next five years, that number will grow—I hope that it does, because that is the way that we ought to treat one another. Liam Kerr said that we need to be respectful in debates. It is right to have robust debates, but we should not be abusive, because if we are—if we turn our fire on individual MSPs in that way—it can have an impact and affect them. Therefore, let us not do that. We are all saying that now, and let us keep to that, because it really matters.
I thank Jenny Young once again for bringing this debate to the Parliament.
18:44
I begin by doing what all members have done and thank Jenny Young for securing the motion for debate in the Parliament, and I congratulate her on her first members’ business debate, on what is clearly an important subject. In the spirit of our discussion, I agree with Stephen Kerr, which I do not do often, that Jenny Young’s contribution was outstanding. Indeed, we have had a range of important and well-informed contributions, for which I am grateful.
The debate has provided us with an opportunity to acknowledge the 10th anniversary of Jo Cox’s terrible murder and to reflect on what she stood for. We should remember that she and, indeed, David Amess were killed as they undertook and discharged their responsibilities as parliamentarians and constituency representatives. We should also remind ourselves that their deaths were not just individual tragedies in that sense; in effect, they were an attack on democracy—a reminder that democracy can be fragile and is often under threat.
I did not know Jo Cox, as others have said, but it is very clear from all that I have seen and read about her and from what has been said in the debate that she brought clear intelligence, energy and compassion to the pursuit of the type of society that we would all want to see, where our communities and our democracy are strengthened by connection, trust and respect. As we have heard, those themes have become her important legacy and are evident across all that she did during her career, which was dedicated to improving the lives of those in need. I believe that all of us in public life strive for that and that we have all been motivated to enter politics for those reasons. Maybe that is a reminder of the point that David Linden made about the common ground that exists between us all. We have different perspectives on how to achieve those ends, but that is what we are all driven by, although I cannot say that I intend to play tennis with anyone in the chamber at any point—I resist the invitation that I am getting from the sidelines.
Members have noted the important work of the Jo Cox Foundation. My predecessor, Graeme Dey, met representatives of the foundation in October last year as they were developing the recommendations for “A Renewed Call to Action for the Devolved Nations” to address abuse and intimidation in politics, which Jenny Young noted. The call to action was published in February and includes recommendations for individual parties and politicians, as well as the Parliament and the Scottish Government, to consider. It may be useful to provide an update on some of the activity that the Government has undertaken in response and, indeed, some of the work that was already under way in education. We would all recognise that ensuring that our young people are properly informed is an important and critical element of the activity.
Last week, Education Scotland published guidance for schools on responding to far-right extremism and racism in current events, which I think is particularly pertinent and important. It picks up on Carol Mochan’s point about responding to the immediate challenges that are before us. There is new time for inclusive education and digital discourse resources to help provide teachers with information and strategies to address the effects of online hate and disinformation, in response to some of the challenges in public life.
I remind colleagues that, in the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Act 2025, we—or, I should say, colleagues in the previous parliamentary session—collectively made provisions to bar those found guilty of offences involving intimidation of campaigners, candidates and elected representatives from being able to stand for office as a member of the Scottish Parliament or as a councillor. We also created a new disqualification order that would apply to those who are guilty of offences involving intimidation of electoral workers.
I recognise that there is a particular challenge with the intimidation that women in politics face. We are providing funding for Engender, which has worked with other members of the Equal Representation Coalition to develop the equal representation in politics toolkit. We have also provided funding for Elect Her, which is working with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to host workshops to provide female councillors with a space to share resources and advice for women who are considering standing for public office.
I hope that that is helpful by way of updating on some of the activity that the Government is undertaking, but I recognise that there will always be more to be done, and we should work collaboratively in that regard.
We should recognise the challenges that we face, but Adam Harley made an important point: that the general experience of being involved in politics is a good one. Just as he spoke of, I like nothing more than to engage with the constituents I represent in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth. By and large, that is a positive experience. I enjoy very much being able to go out and meet the individuals and organisations that I represent. However, we should be aware of, not pretend otherwise and shy away from, the fact that the level of abuse and intimidation of candidates and elected representatives is unacceptably high. I agree with Stephen Kerr that we should consider that, for some people, that acts as a disincentive in the first place from coming forward to stand. That should concern us all, and we should respond. The Government, the parties and the Parliament as an institution have a role to play in that regard.
I welcome the member’s comments about the quality of the debate this evening. I put on record my thanks to all members for their very fine contributions, which were thought provoking, for sure. Jamie Hepburn is the minister for parliamentary business, and this has been a really good debate, so will he consider in future scheduling more debates that raise the tone and substance of our debate in the Parliament?
I say to Ms Young that I am pretty sure that every debate that I schedule is designed to do that. It is then over to colleagues to deliver on the rest. However, I am always willing to hear what topics members might like to be brought forward.
I will finish on a point that has been made by a number of members, which is about the language that we use. Freedom of speech, the right to free assembly and the right to protest are fundamental to a free society and a liberal democracy. However, all too often, of late, some people out there have articulated their activities as being predicated on those principles but have veered into the type of language that I find reprehensible. Many of us—most of us; all of us, indeed—find it reprehensible. Those people are causing concern. In that regard, Q Manivannan was right about the importance of the choice of language that we deploy. We should all remember that. Michelle Campbell and Patricia Gibson made the point about the manner in which we seek to engage in discourse.
When we see some of the activities that are causing real concern and are motivated by various forms of extremism—right now, the main challenge is far-right extremism, which we have seen on our streets in the past few days—we must show leadership. We must call out any rhetoric of that nature. That is something that I am committed to, and we should commit to it collectively, because that is the type of call that, I think, Jo Cox, her foundation and, indeed, Ms Young, in this members’ business debate, have sought to make. We must all aspire to achieve that.
Meeting closed at 18:53.
Previous
Decision Time