Chamber and committees

No comment. I thank them very much for that. I wonder whether we would like to have the petitioners involved, too. As a courtesy, it might be nice to have them.

PE1862, which was lodged by Rona MacKay, Angus Campbell and Naomi Bremner on behalf of the Uist economic task force, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce community representation on boards of public organisations that deliver lifeline services to island communities, in keeping with the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018.

I am delighted to welcome back Liam McArthur and to welcome Alasdair Allan, both online, to speak to the petition. Before I come to our guests, I will provide a little additional background.

We last considered the petition on 1 September 2021. At that meeting, the committee discussed an earlier submission by the Scottish Government, which explained that the requirements for the appointments to a public body board are set out in the public body’s founding legislation. The committee highlighted that there was

“nothing in the Scottish Government’s submission to suggest that it has any plans to amend founding legislation for public bodies on the basis that lifeline services to island communities require community representation on their boards”.—[Official Report, Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, 1 September 2021; c 19.]

The committee therefore agreed to write to the Scottish Government to clarify whether it had any plans to amend founding legislation for such a purpose. As with one of the previous petitions, we have had no response as yet from the Scottish Government ahead of our consideration today. However, I am happy to bring in both of our parliamentary colleagues for further comment. I ask Alasdair Allan to comment first.

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?

As no other member wishes to come in, on the basis of David Torrance’s suggestions and the contribution from Rhoda Grant, I think that we are proposing to write to the Scottish Government to highlight the success in Dundee and to ask when the pause is likely to be removed. We will also ask the Scottish Government whether it intends to provide dedicated funding to ensure that ultrasound scanning can be made available to more patients in Scotland and how it plans to raise awareness of essential tremor among patients and healthcare professionals.

I would also like us to take on board Rhoda Grant’s suggestion that we write to the two organisations that she mentioned. I am sorry, but I did not actually catch the acronyms, but they will have been noted by the clerks. She mentioned two bodies that she was keen for the committee to write to, so I would like to include them in our further submissions.

Are members content with that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

Do members agree with Mr Torrance’s recommendation that we close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders?

Members indicated agreement.

In closing the petition, I thank the petitioner, Carol Burns, and very much hope that she engages with the Scottish Sentencing Council on the development of the guidelines that is under way.

Is the committee content to proceed on the basis of Ruth Maguire’s recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.