Chamber and committees

It seems quite extraordinary in terms of scheduling that we have moved from events in the middle east, which so terrify and appal us, to the commemoration of events in Ukraine, visited currently by fresh conflict from Russia, which intimidate and terrify us all over again. It is extraordinary that some 7 million people died long before the events of the Holocaust, a decade later. There were two Holocausts, if you like—genocides of respective peoples, one by fascists and one by Bolsheviks, with both sides claiming to have been on the right side of history. I call that a lazy phrase, because only history can judge those things. Ultimately, history did not favour either the Bolsheviks or the fascists.

The figure is quite extraordinary: 7 million people. The Holocaust that was visited upon the Jewish population was of Jews from the continent over—and indeed, beyond. The Holodomor was visited on the population of a single country—the working agricultural, rural workforce, which was effectively starved to death by a kind of collectivist nonsense promulgated by the Soviet, blinkered mentality of how an agricultural, agrarian community should operate, which simply led, by greater and greater degrees, to the deaths of so many.

There were higher and higher quotas that could not be fulfilled, the repatriation to the land of anybody who sought to leave, and the confiscation of the very seeds that were needed to establish and achieve a higher grain yield in the subsequent year. It was effectively a death sentence to be left to try to meet the theoretical nonsense of the Bolshevik Soviets in those ghastly years, and so many starved to death.

For decades afterwards, there was a denial of those things, and there still is. Although there is absolute condemnation of Hitler and Nazism across the world—albeit, unfortunately, there are those somewhere on the extreme far right who will still look to the Nazis—there is still sometimes a wider sympathy for Stalin. There is an effort to rehabilitate him slightly in Putin’s Russia, where some of the statues are going back up, yet that man was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions across what was his own country—never mind anyone else’s—and this appalling atrocity that was visited on the people there.

The Prime Minister visited Ukraine last year, in the run-up to the commemoration of the Holodomor.

There has been some debate about whether or not the Holodomor was a genocide. In the debate that took place in the House of Commons, my colleague David Mundell said:

“how would the UK’s standing be diminished in any way by recognising the holodomor as a genocide?”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 25 May 2023; Vol 733, c 519.]

I completely associate myself with those sentiments. I think that we can—not happily, but collectively—agree that it was a genocide visited on the people of Ukraine, and we see, with ghastly symbolism and symmetry, a shocking conflict visited upon them yet again. President Zelensky said:

“Once they wanted to destroy us with hunger, now, with darkness and cold”,

and with bombs and weapons, but the people of Ukraine will not forget and the world will not forget their actions.

The motion refers to events across our own country that are offering support. I pay tribute to the communities in Clarkston and Giffnock in my constituency that have worked so hard to make Ukrainian refugees here feel welcome. That will be the story of every member across the chamber.

It is so depressing that, in a single day in this Parliament, in this era, all these years later, we have had to debate two conflicts that have caused so much pain in the past and continue to cause so much pain and suffering today. The Holodomor was a genocide and, 90 years on, we should recognise and remember it as such.

I think that the answer to Mr Brown’s point is that, given that Hamas has said that it will not observe a ceasefire, there is a belief by Israel that today’s motion, when passed, and the campaign for a ceasefire will be meant to lead to a unilateral ceasefire by Israel. It will be held to the standard of unilaterally ceasing fire, notwithstanding the fact that the other side will not. That issue is at the heart of all this.

In a moment.

Therefore, people should understand that, to me, this is not about Palestine and Israel so much as it is about Hamas and Jews, and about the absolute resolve of that terrorist group, harboured within Gaza, on which so much is now being visited, and what it inflicted on the people of Israel on that day. That is what manifestly moves so many people of Jewish faith wherever they happen to live.

Yet, in the face of that—I will touch on this before returning to the substance of the debate—the Senior Rabbi of Scotland, Moshe Rubin, talked about his conversations with Arabs and people of other faiths at a reception last week with Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal and the hope that comes from that.

As I have said, the Chief Rabbi, Sir Ephraim Mirvis, came to my constituency to celebrate the 60th anniversary of Calderwood Lodge primary school, which is the subject of my members’ business debate tomorrow. His engagement under the leadership of His Majesty the King has been clear, with similar interfaith conversations taking place across the rest of the United Kingdom. We must pray, hope and toil to ensure that this conflict is not visited on our communities here. That must be the one thing that we can influence and determine as an outcome.

A week last Saturday, quite by accident, I walked right into the march on Buchanan Street. I had been out for lunch and was dressed in green and black. I bumped into a very close Muslim friend—in fact, he is the son of someone to whom I am also very close—and he said, “Jackson, you’re in the wrong colours. What are you doing?” However, when I stood there and watched the faces of those marching and the families, I saw not a campaign against Israel but a campaign for Palestine and for justice for the people of Palestine. As I said, they have been betrayed. They have been let down by broken promises internationally. There have been collapsed hopes, violent belligerence and a failure to negotiate. Since the 1990s, they have lived in hope but, in reality, the international movement has not acted collectively to resolve the difficulties. However, absent were placards that might help—placards that said, “Release the hostages” or “Expel Hamas”. Those are the conditions that need to be met for us to at least get to the first stage of moving forward.

If, for 20 years or so, international politics has been defined by the events of 9/11, I fear that, for the rest of my lifetime and for the next 30 years, international politics will be defined by the events of 7 October, Israel’s response and the trauma that has been visited on Gaza since then. That would be a tragedy, but if I am being pragmatic and realistic, I do not think that there is an atmosphere in which we can expect meaningful progress to be made. That is the biggest tragedy of all. Yes, I hope that, collectively, we can join international voices to work to overcome that atmosphere, but it stands as the greatest obstacle to progress.

Can I support the motion? There is so much on which we agree, and there have been so many speeches with which I have agreed. There have even been things said by those who have been fiercely critical of Israel that I can understand and respect. Do I apologise for everything that Israel has done? No, I do not. Do I apologise for everything that Israel has done over the past 30 to 50 years? No, I do not.

However, right now, a unilateral ceasefire by Israel, which is, I fear, the practical consequence of the motion, will not lead to a reciprocal move by Hamas but will allow it to consolidate and do exactly what members have said during the debate, which is to carry on the campaign of violence against Jews, as it has promised it will. It is that difficulty that causes me to hesitate, even though I feel overwhelmed by and somewhat inadequate to the debate in which I am participating.

I thank all those members who have taken part in the debate. As I said, it has been deeply emotional and deeply troubling. Finally, let me say that I know that my Jewish constituents feel the pain, suffering and loss of everybody in Gaza equally. They have said that. They breathe it. They live it. It unites us all. It is such a difficult debate, and I thank all those who have contributed to it.

Thank you very much, minister.

We most recently considered the petition on 31 May, when we reflected on the evidence that we had taken in April from the petitioner and from Who Cares? Scotland, CELCIS, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland and The Promise Scotland. That was a striking round-table session, which persuaded the committee of the fundamental decency and drive of Jasmin’s petition.

I think that you have already answered this question but, to open the discussion, will you provide a clear assertion of where the extending of eligibility for continuing care and aftercare through legislation sits in the Government’s priorities?

If Cara Cooper or Sarah Corbett wishes to come in, they should let me know. The minister may also invite them to come in.

I think that I follow what you are saying, minister. Through the listening exercise and the consultation, you are exploring ways in which the priority of extending eligibility for continuing care and aftercare could be realised or delivered. That may or may not be through legislation. Is that where we are at? Do you see there being a role for legislation or do you think that, through the work that you are doing, there might be another route to achieving the outcome?

It seems a most unfortunate role—

Thank you, minister. We have listened carefully, and, in the comprehensive responses that you have given, a number of our questions have been answered without our having to put them, so that brings us to the end of our questions. Is there anything else that you feel that we might not have touched on that you want to add before we conclude?

Thank you, Mr Ewing. I agree that there is broader interest in the matter in the Parliament. Indeed, there was considerable interest when Stanley the eagle visited the precincts of the Parliament.

I think that we were disappointed by the evidence that underpinned the decision that was made and the digging in that we heard during the round-table evidence session that we held. We had hoped that the logic and evidence that we had heard might lead the Government to take a different position, but that is not the case.

When we next approach the parliamentary authorities in relation to committee debating time, are colleagues minded to seek to have a debate on the issue in the chamber?

Members indicated agreement.

We will therefore seek to do that and to highlight the issue more generally as a result. We will see what progress can be made in that way and take forward those actions. We had a well-informed debate on surgical mesh not long ago and then our committee debate on our report, but I expect us to have an opportunity for a debate in the chamber in the new year. Therefore, we will seek to have the issue of allowing mountain hares to be hunted for falconry purposes as one of possibly two short debates that we would take to the chamber on that occasion.

Yes, thank you. Again, I would say to the petitioner that it is something that they and we should keep an eye on. I am conscious that not all cancers are terminal illnesses and that, therefore, a number of people might be excluded who might nonetheless benefit from the payment at an earlier point in their treatment. That issue is something that can come back to us at a later date. However, given the Scottish Government’s position, I am afraid that there is nothing further that the committee can do to take forward the aims of the petition. Are colleagues content to close the petition on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.