Chamber and committees

Holocaust memorial day was first commemorated in 2005, so it is younger than this Parliament. Since I joined the Parliament in 2007, it has been a privilege, in some years, to have proposed motions, in others, to have participated in the debate and, more often, to have just listened with appreciation to the contributions from all parts of the chamber.

My life began in a community full of Jewish neighbours and friends, and I know now that many of them had first-hand experience of the horrors of the industrialised Nazi-perpetrated Holocaust. For decades, they kept their memories to themselves, often even from their immediate family.

Just as I remember that moment when Harry Patch—the last survivor of the conflict on the western front in the great war—died in 2009, it is clear that we are close to a moment when the diminishing number of survivors of the Holocaust will be with us no longer.

I am profoundly appreciative of the fact that I grew up in a community that was so rich in Jewish heritage. However, the surviving elected parliamentary constituency representatives of my Eastwood community—Kirsten Oswald, Paul Masterton and, in particular, Jim Murphy and my predecessor, Ken Macintosh, and I—are, in all likelihood, the last who will come to know and learn from those who were there or who survived the Holocaust.

In the past 18 months, Eastwood has lost two of its most formidable yet charismatic members of our community: Judith Rosenberg, Scotland’s last survivor of Auschwitz, and Ingrid Wuga, a beneficiary, with her husband Henry, of the Kindertransport just a few weeks before the outbreak of war in 1939.

Ingrid and Henry Wuga settled in Glasgow and, tirelessly, until her death in her 90s, Ingrid actively supported the work of Holocaust education and awareness in schools and communities. In her last five years alone, while in her 90s, she spoke to some 5,000 adults and children through the Holocaust Educational Trust’s outreach programme. For her work, she was awarded the British empire medal and is survived by Henry, who is still a familiar presence where he lives at Eastwood Toll. Indeed, I am delighted that, at the rather splendid age of 97, he was able to participate in Scotland’s national commemoration last night and grant an interview to “Good Morning Scotland” this morning.

Holocaust memorial day is commemorated on the anniversary of the date of the liberation of the Auschwitz extermination camp on this day in 1945 by Soviet forces advancing from the east. Judith Rosenberg died at the age of 98, just a few days before this day in January last year, and I last met her shortly before the restrictions that were brought about by the current pandemic. She was as bright as ever.

What distinguished her testimony was that her recollections were of her experience at Auschwitz not as an infant or even a child, but as a young adult woman of 22. She could remember events with extraordinary clarity. Her story might be familiar, but nothing could be more affecting than to hear at first hand about the torturous cattle-truck train journey, during which her father helped pile the corpses of those who had perished in the atrocious cramped conditions in a corner of the carriage; the lack of food and water; and having to hack through the floor of the carriage to establish drainage for waste—something that was not achieved by many.

Most of all, it was affecting to hear the final message from her father as the train pulled to a halt at Auschwitz—somewhere that I know members of this Parliament have stood:

“If the Germans ever offer you options, always choose the hard option, because there will be an ulterior motive.”

Although she was not to see her father again, it was his advice that saved Judith and her mother and sister. They took it, and chose the option of walking the final 3km to Auschwitz, while all those who opted for transport were immediately murdered in the gas chambers.

She survived, but the privations and torments of her subsequent time there were appalling. Four months after her arrival, in September 1944, she was finally sent for her first shower in a building with a notice that read “Gaskammer”. You can imagine her terror. However, for her at least, it was just a shower. Sent to a munitions factory, she borrowed from her pre-war experience of the family watchmaking business, which was to earn her extra provisions and also save her sister and mother.

Because of her facility for languages, she was employed as an interpreter after liberation by the Americans. In April 1945, she met and fell for a young army officer, Lieutenant Harold Rosenberg, who she said never left her side for the next 60 years, having lobbied personally and successfully for permission from Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery to marry. They settled in Giffnock in Eastwood. Presiding Officer, that was Judith Rosenberg, Scotland’s last survivor of Auschwitz.

I have dwelled on Judith and Ingrid’s stories because this was a Holocaust that was visited on people—on individuals who are in our community now who lost parents, grandparents and countless relatives and friends. We should never lose sight of the personal in any commemoration or remembrance of the Holocaust.

Auschwitz might have been liberated on this day in 1945, but it was this week in 1942, almost 80 years ago, that the infamous Wannsee conference took place and its notorious protocol was agreed. It was there, under the cold direction of Reinhard Heydrich and scribed by Adolf Eichmann, that the world’s first Holocaust was signed off—an audit of Europe’s 11 million Jews, a systematic plan to murder them all as Nazi conquest prevailed, and a decision to do so without delay, because, as it read in the minute, “useless mouths” should not be fed.

The one surviving copy of the protocol, which was called in evidence at Nuremberg, is municipally bland, even if its meaning is anything but. This, then, was the final destination of Nazi antisemitism and the relentless prejudice and persecution that had been systematically prosecuted and entrenched since Hitler came to power in 1932. Hundreds of thousands had by then already been murdered, but now and within weeks extermination was to progress on an unprecedented scale and with an unprecedented fervour, claiming the lives of 6 million Jews and millions more besides—Hitler’s so-called “final solution”.

The theme of this year’s Holocaust memorial day is “one day” in history. Of course, any day can be held in the memory quite differently depending on where one happens to be, and that was true of every single day during world war two. The Holocaust Memorial Day Trust offers chilling examples.

On 19 April 1943, the Jewish inhabitants of the Warsaw ghetto fought back against the Nazis.

In Bosnia, 12 July 1995 was the last day that large numbers of women saw their husbands, fathers, sons and brothers. On that date, despite Srebrenica having been designated by the United Nations as a safe area, Bosnian Serb soldiers entered it and started to separate Bosniak men from women and children. Subsequently, 8,000 Bosniak men and boys were murdered in and around Srebrenica.

On 17 April 1975, the Khmer Rouge moved into the Cambodian capital. The entry of the Khmer Rouge resulted in a five-year campaign of terror during which 2 million people were murdered by Pol Pot.

During 100 days in 1994, around 1 million Tutsis and moderate Hutus were murdered in Rwanda.

Antisemitism and racial, sexual and genetic prejudice were not the unique preserve of Nazi Germany. In a previous debate, I noted that, in 1946, the year after world war two, more Jews were murdered across Europe than in the 13 years before the war combined. Many were killed where they stood when they finally made it back to homes that were now occupied by others. Nazi Germany fell; antisemitism existed before it and has prevailed since, and it has done so across our continent as much as anywhere else.

Of the other atrocities just mentioned, those in 1975, 1994 and 1995 were all, shamefully, in my lifetime. How hollow, then, is the mantra “never again”. Holocaust memorial day serves as a commemoration of those lost not only in the Holocaust but in the multiple genocides in the near 80 years since. Importantly, it must remind us of an enduring and permanent duty not just to pay lip service on days such as this but to confront, challenge, educate and defeat the forces harbouring and perpetuating genocidal schemes and all that underpins and facilitates them.

Like many, I have wept at the horror and barbarism of the Holocaust and of the genocides in my lifetime. Have we failed? Sometimes, it overwhelmingly feels that we have. What must our response be? There can be no other choice; we must rededicate ourselves to meeting the challenge, every year, every decade and every generation. In so doing, we honour the people who were lost. I know that, as a Parliament and a country, we will do that together.

On behalf of the Scottish Conservatives, I thank Graeme Dey for his service in Government. He brings a rather rare quality to Government, which is a general bonhomie and a sense of humour. He never knowingly did not assiduously promote the cause of his party, but he was a wily performer. That was demonstrated in a recent debate that I was engaged in with him on the East Kilbride railway line, in which he was quick to suggest that I should write to him about a potential extension to that line through my constituency. I realise that that was because he knew that he would be away before the letter arrived.

I congratulate Jenny Gilruth on her subsequent appointment. I do not think that anyone could pay more effusive tribute to her than her partner Kezia Dugdale did on Twitter. Therefore, I simply direct the chamber to those comments, happily endorse them, and wish Jenny Gilruth well with her new responsibilities.

I met Neil Gray for the first time in the House of Commons when I was attending a mesh event with Alex Neil, his predecessor. I had a convivial supper with him and his colleagues Mhairi Black and Chris Law, which caused some consternation among the Conservative whips at the time. Alex Neil was quick to tell me that Neil Gray was a talent to watch. As I recall, Mr Gray agreed and told me that he expected to be fast tracked to ministerial office fairly quickly, so he is clearly a man who is as good as his word.

From the conversations that I have had with him, I think that Neil Gray is bright and able but I caution him not always to rush in. Just 48 hours before the First Minister made a speech at the start of the year on how Scotland would have to learn to live with the virus, Mr Gray tweeted

“Learning to live with the virus is still code for being willing to let many of your fellow citizens suffer hospitalisation or death.”

That is quite a challenge to the First Minister’s integrity and common sense, but I am sure that it will be overlooked. My only advice to him in future would be to be slightly less brave.

I wish Mr Gray well in his new responsibilities and assure him that the letter that was going to Mr Dey will now be coming to him. I have no idea whether it will get a more favourable response, but we happily support the nomination made by the First Minister.

I congratulate Mr Yousaf and the Government on driving the bill forward to its conclusion today.

I do not think that people realise how unprecedented and brave the bill is. It may have a narrow focus, but it is unprecedented for a country and a national health service to reimburse the costs incurred by women for health treatment falling outside the scope of that national health service and, in some cases, taking place internationally. I hope that that sits as an example to other countries that are seeking to decide how to bring justice to the women in their countries who have suffered, and it may yet serve as a model for some unforeseen future problem.

I do not want to walk away from the fact that issues remain. We will wait to see what Professor Alison Britton’s casework review reveals when her report is published, and we look to the implementation of the recommendations that were made by Baroness Cumberlege, which is on-going. We also note the cabinet secretary’s assurance in relation to the women who have had mesh removed but have consequential health issues that still require to be resolved. We want to ensure that a focus continues to be brought to bear on them.

I thanked a number of people in my speech at stage 1. I do not wish to go through the list again, but I would like to thank some other women this time: formidable journalists who have been fundamental to the success of the campaign. I thank Lucy Adams at the BBC and, in particular, her predecessor Eleanor Bradford, who was one of the first journalists in mainstream broadcasting media who was prepared to confront the issue and ensure that it got a public airing. Mandy Rhodes at Holyrood magazine has been an assiduous supporter of the women throughout, and a continual support to those of us who have sought to maintain a focus on the issue.

However, I hope that they will forgive me if I single out the indefatigable and indomitable efforts of the investigative journalist Marion Scott, first of the Sunday Mail and now of the Sunday Post. Maz, as she is known to the women, has absolutely been beside them at every turn, and she has left no stone unturned in ensuring that every aspect of the story and its development around the world was given a proper airing and brought to bear on the debate that we have had. I know that she has been the most extraordinary friend to the women, and they owe her—and believe that they owe her—a great deal for ensuring that the campaign that they have been fighting has led to the success that it has today.

I thank once again my constituent Elaine Holmes, who brought the petition to the Parliament together with Olive McIlroy almost eight years ago, in April 2014.

I will conclude with a personal reflection. I have been in the Parliament for 15 years, and many of the big issues that I confronted in my youth in politics were resolved before I got here—many in my favour, and others not. However, I realise that the issues that I have been involved in in the Parliament form a thread. I supported Trish Godman’s campaign on wheelchairs in the first session, which has had such a life-changing effect on many people who previously had no bespoke wheelchairs and had to make do with things that were unsuitable. There was the campaign that my colleague and friend Ruth Davidson asked me to lead on behalf of my party on same-sex marriage. There was the campaign that I fought with others for access to orphan-condition pharmaceutical medicines, which had previously so often been overlooked. I have stood up for my Jewish constituents in Eastwood and Jewish people more widely across Scotland. I have campaigned with Margo MacDonald and am now campaigning with you, Presiding Officer, to bring enlightenment on the issue of assisted dying.

The common thread that runs throughout all those things and the campaign on mesh is that they have all depended entirely on powerful cross-party working in the Parliament. They are models of what we can achieve when we work together as parliamentarians, and how powerful the message and the changes can be for people across Scotland, in every different way of life, when they know that they have the support of the whole Parliament.

Some members have been kind enough to mention that Alex Neil, Neil Findlay and I have been referred to from time to time as the three meshketeers. Today, this is a united Parliament of meshketeers, and that is something of which we can all be proud.

I listened with care to the First Minister’s announcement of a return to hybrid working from 31 January. Could she advise those of us who assist the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, which must consider the decisions, whether the regulations underpinning that will permit a return to 1m social distancing here in the chamber, in our parliamentary and constituency offices, and more widely across the parliamentary campus, in order to facilitate it?

The next continued petition is PE1891, which was lodged by Lewis Alexander Condy and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that all children have the opportunity to learn to swim by making it a statutory requirement to provide lessons in the primary school curriculum.

I am delighted to say that we are joined by our colleague Foysol Choudhury MSP. Good morning, Mr Choudhury. I will invite you to speak in a minute or so but, before I do so I will provide a bit more background to the following proceedings.

We previously considered the petition in November of last year, when we agreed to write to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to seek data on how many schools provide swimming lessons as part of the curriculum. We also wrote to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and Scottish Swimming.

COSLA’s submission states that, currently,

“There are no local or national mechanisms in place”

to collect the data, and notes that the delivery of swimming lessons can depend on factors such as access to facilities, cost and delivery model. The latest figures, which are pre-pandemic and are for 2018-19, suggest that

“21 Local Authorities were offering swimming activity through the Active Schools Network.”

Scottish Swimming notes in its submission that

“there were over 106,000 children enrolled in learn to swim programmes ... prior to the pandemic”.

The submission also highlights data that suggests that

“there is a direct correlation between a child’s socio-economic background and their opportunity to learn to swim.”

Scottish Swimming states that it has submitted a proposal to the Scottish Government in support of a programme of school swimming and is currently involved in discussions with sportscotland on its potential development.

We also received a submission from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, which highlights the need for any swimming programme to include consideration of outdoor water survival skills.

The petitioner suggests that the current policy of allowing councils to choose whether to provide swimming lessons is unfair, leading to many children missing out or being forced to take private lessons, which might be inaccessible to lower-income families or those living in rural areas.

Before I turn to members of the committee, I ask Mr Choudhury whether he would like to comment on the petition’s aims.

Thank you for those very helpful comments.

We have had quite a comprehensive discussion this morning. I see no indication that other committee members wish to come in, so I thank Foysol Choudhury for joining us this morning.

I think that we will keep Mr Condy’s petition open and write as David Torrance has suggested, but I suggest that we also include some of the themes that Paul Sweeney has talked about and highlight not just the teaching of swimming as people would traditionally think of it in controlled environments such as swimming pools but the life-saving benefits of what one might call, for want of a better description, wild swimming in its widest sense and as described in the conversation that we have just had. It might go slightly broader than the range of the petition, but we could look at what more might be done to progress the issue in a way that would save lives, even though ultimately the petition’s objective with regard to swimming pools is slightly impractical for certain local authorities. There is certainly a very important issue at the heart of this.

Do members agree to keep the petition open and to seek further information on the basis that has been proposed?

Members indicated agreement.

Once again, I thank Mr Choudhury for joining us this morning.

PE1912, on funding for council venues, has been lodged by Wendy Dunsmore. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide councils with the necessary additional revenue to run essential services and venues.

It is worth noting that the SPICe briefing on the petition, the Scottish Government’s submission and the petitioner’s submission were all written before the Scottish Government budget 2022-23 was published, which happened on 9 December 2021. Key points from a separate SPICe briefing on local government finance that was produced following the budget’s publication include the facts that, once additional revenue and capital grants are factored in, the total local government settlement increased by £603 million, or 5.1 per cent, between 2021-22 and 2022-23; and that there will be a real-terms increase in provisional revenue allocations for all local authorities, except Western Isles Council, Shetland Islands Council and Orkney Islands Council, which all experience small real-terms reductions.

In his submission, the Minister for Public Finance, Planning and Community Wealth highlights the 2021-22 settlement of £11.7 billion, stating that it provided “a cash increase” in local government spending. The petitioner’s submission is a collective response to the minister from Unite, Unison and the GMB. Although they recognise that local authorities make decisions about service provision and delivery, they note that those decisions are not without

“unfair challenges caused by a real terms reduction of funding”.

The petitioner’s submission also points out that, as much of the £11.7 billion settlement figure is ring fenced for Scottish Government commitments, it is therefore “not technically available” for local authority spending decisions.

I invite comments from colleagues.

Our last new petition is PE1916, which requests a public inquiry into the management of the Rest and Be Thankful project and was lodged by Councillor Douglas Philand and Councillor Donald Kelly.

As promised, I am delighted to welcome back Rhoda Grant for the final petition this morning. I will come to her shortly.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to instigate a public inquiry regarding the political and financial management of the A83 Rest and Be Thankful project, which is to provide a permanent solution for the route.

Transport Scotland explains in its submission that, following a number of landslides across Scotland in 2004, a nationwide Scottish road network landslides study was carried out. The study concluded that the A83 Ardgartan to Rest and Be Thankful is one of the most highly ranked debris flow hazard sites in Scotland.

In 2012, Transport Scotland commissioned a study to identify and appraise potential options to minimise the effects of road closures. The final A83 route study, which was published in February 2013, explains that the decision was made to progress with the red option, as it was considered at that time to offer the best performance and the most cost-effective way of meeting the study’s objectives. Those objectives included maintaining the existing alignment of the A83 with a range of landslide mitigation measures such as additional debris flow barriers at locations where the landslide hazard was considered highest; the improvement of hillside drainage adjacent to and under the road; and the introduction of vegetation and planting on the slope.

In its submission, Transport Scotland provided a range of data that shows the number of days on which the various stretches of road in and around the A83 were closed due to landslides. The data shows that the events that occurred in 2020 and 2021 were significantly larger in scale than any of the previous events.

Following that, several new measures were introduced to make it quicker, easier and safer to open the road should it be closed by a landslide. In 2020, a consultation exercise was carried out to consider 11 route corridor options to address issues at the Rest and Be Thankful route. More than 650 people provided feedback, and the Glen Croe corridor was chosen as the preferred route.

The Transport Scotland submission advises that

“timescales for completion of a long term solution to the issues at the Rest and Be Thankful range from 7–10 years”.

In the interim, Transport Scotland advises that work is progressing

“to look at a medium term resilient route through Glen Croe”

and that

“that work will seek to develop a finalised proposal by Autumn”

this year. The submission states:

“Since the A83 Taskforce was set up in 2012, meetings have been held every 6 months”

and that “a substantial project update” is due

“at the next Taskforce meeting in early 2022”.

A project-specific web page has also been launched on the Transport Scotland website.

Against that background, I am happy to invite comments from Rhoda Grant.

I remember standing there on a site investigation with the previous committee. You are absolutely right that the military road sits in the shadow of the principal route. It is hardly a wonderful alternative, but at least it was an alternative, although not when there was a significant landslide. The route in the valley opposite was regarded as being far too steep to be developed for heavy goods vehicles or other larger vehicles. It has been a significant on-going problem.