Chamber and committees

I will start by declaring an interest in that, as we have heard, I am a former education convener in East Renfrewshire Council.

I am pleased to be participating in the debate this evening, and I thank Jackson Carlaw for his kind words and for the way in which we have been able to work together to bring the motion to the chamber. I also thank him for his long support of the Jewish community in East Renfrewshire. We have both had a strong relationship with that community over many years, and there is a real cross-party consensus in East Renfrewshire, where we work to support all our diverse communities.

As we have heard, these are undoubtedly dark times for Jewish people around the world. Many of the conversations that I have had with the Jewish community in East Renfrewshire recently have been in grief and in prayer for those who have been murdered in Israel. Often, in those conversations, Jewish people have expressed fear for their safety and security as antisemitism rises. What we heard in yesterday’s debate and have heard in much of the commentary is that we must all stand together against the rising tide of antisemitism that we are seeing in our world.

I am clear that that is not how Jewish people want to be defined or seen. Indeed, when I, along with Jackson Carlaw, joined the community in celebrating 60 years of Scotland’s only Jewish school, Calderwood Lodge, I heard a variety of voices speaking in joyful celebration and in hope—celebration of what the community has achieved over 60 years and hope for what it will go on to achieve in the future here in Scotland. That hope and joy were exemplified in the smiling faces and angelic voices of the children of the school, who shared traditional Hebrew songs with us as we tucked into a great brunch that morning in Calderwood Lodge.

The community is rightly proud of what many describe as the jewel in the crown of the Jewish story in Scotland. That story is long and varied, just as the school’s story is long and varied—we have heard much of that articulated by Jackson Carlaw this evening.

It was my honour to serve on East Renfrewshire Council for 10 years, including five years as vice-convener of education and four years as convener. I am grateful to John Swinney for his comments on that. Although he and I often disagreed on elements of policy when I was convener, there was a real sense that, on issues such as improving school facilities and making sure that we pushed forward in bringing communities together, we were very much working with one purpose. I know that, over his time as education secretary, many of the schools in East Renfrewshire greatly valued the time that he gave to visit schools and speak with staff, pupils and parents. His visits were always well regarded, so I am grateful to him for that.

I will focus my remaining time on the rebuilding of the school on its current site in Newton Mearns. It had long been the council’s ambition to relocate the school and provide new and modern facilities. I am proud that we chose to do that by investing £17 million in what we believe to be the world’s first Jewish-Roman Catholic shared campus. It was a courageous and bold plan in many ways, but it enjoyed the support of parents from both faith communities, the leaders of those faith communities, staff and the wider community in East Renfrewshire.

It was not always plain sailing; trust had to be built. I recall many late meetings of parent councils and community groups to iron out some of the issues and concerns and find common ground. Common ground was the key—respecting one another’s faith and traditions and deciding to share where we could on encounter, experience and humanity.

I remember that, when the architects presented the plans for the building, they spoke about there being a central heart, and it was the facility that John Swinney referred to. It would be a place where children could come together—the busyness of school life would pause for a while and there would be time together to share meals and for dancing, drama, social occasions and faith experiences.

There was a real sense that, for both schools, having a heart in the school was nothing new. For them, it was not just about the heart as the centre of the building; it was about so much more. For 60 years, Calderwood Lodge has been a beating heart—a place of learning and love where Jewish children have learned alongside Muslim children and children of other faiths and no faith, and where lives have been shaped and minds have been inspired. It stands as a beacon of hope, perseverance, tolerance and respect. As the motion rightly states, it is an asset to East Renfrewshire and to Scotland. It rightly commands the pride of the Jewish community and the local authority.

In concluding, may I suggest that Calderwood Lodge also commands this Parliament’s pride and respect? Let us, with one voice, say, to the community of Calderwood Lodge, mazel tov, and to all pupils, teachers and the community, past and present, chazak v’ematz.

I am sorry: I appreciate that I am asking very wide-ranging questions.

I am grateful for those contributions. It is helpful for the committee to have that on the public record as well as in your written statements. In relation to how the bill might change, it is useful to understand your view that the bill would have to be substantially rewritten in order to achieve some of what has been set out by other witnesses from whom we have heard.

I appreciate that the Association of Construction Attorneys takes a different view. How was that view arrived at, and what is your view of the discussion that we have just had?

It would be worth exploring the comparison with England, notwithstanding the point that was just made about the scope of the bill. If we are having an academic discussion, let us have the academic discussion.

It is useful to have that view. Does anyone wish to add to that point before I ask another question?

Good morning. I will begin with issues relating to proposed regulation. Mr Dunlop commented on what the bill is not seeking to do, in relation to independent regulation, in the view of the majority of the panel, and I am keen to understand those views more.

In evidence sessions in previous weeks, we have heard support for independent regulation to some degree, although you contend that that is not within the scope of the bill. Might you be able to expand slightly on the argument for why you feel that it is not within the scope of the bill, and that—to use the expression that you used—that ship has sailed. I am keen to understand the thinking around that.

Yes, if I can.

I refer to your written submission, Mr Murdoch. It is concerning for the committee to hear your view on the threat to the independence of the judiciary. Could you expand on your view of the bill, perhaps by addressing the point about amendments to the bill and what might be required to deal with some of the problems?

I am grateful for that.

The Law Society had quite a bit to say about section 6 being too narrow—for example, it does not cover estate agency work and incidental financial business, which the public would recognise as being long established in the sector more broadly. Why did you arrive at the feeling that the section is narrow, and how might the bill be amended to widen the scope?