Chamber and committees

That concludes the public part of our meeting. We will meet again after the summer recess.

We now move into private session.

Our second continued petition is PE1933, on allowing the Fornethy survivors to access Scotland’s redress scheme, which was lodged by Iris Tinto on behalf of the Fornethy Survivors Group, some of whom are with us in the gallery today. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to widen access to Scotland’s redress scheme to allow Fornethy survivors to seek redress.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 12 June 2024, when we heard evidence from the chair and chief executive of Redress Scotland about the processes for considering redress applications. We subsequently received further submissions from the petitioner, sharing their reflections on the evidence from Redress Scotland and commenting on recent submissions from Thompsons Solicitors, the Law Society of Scotland and the First Minister.

The petitioner’s second submission provides further detail to support their view that Fornethy house operated as a residential school, and includes reference material about bursaries for Fornethy house from the Glasgow education department.

We have heard a lot of evidence and the committee is clear about its direction of travel. Do members have any comments or suggestions about how we might proceed???

I am content to agree to that, too.

Obviously, we are about to go into the summer recess, so we will confirm the wording of the final draft of our letter by correspondence. In view of that, are colleagues content that any correspondence, once agreed, should be published on the petitions web page and to delegate to me, as convener, arrangements for publication to ensure that we not only send a letter to the Government, but that we make a public statement on the conclusions that the committee has reached and the firm recommended direction that the committee is urging the Government to follow?

Members indicated agreement.

In the only possibly lighter moment in the debate, Presiding Officer, I apologise for my slightly unconventionally accoutred appearance. I now know how Neil Gray felt when his trousers disintegrated on him; I thought that my choice was the lesser of two evils in attending the chamber this afternoon.

I also apologise as, given the late start to the debate, I may not be able to stay until its conclusion.

Turning to the substance, I begin with the contribution from Humza Yousaf. I congratulate him on bringing the debate to the chamber. It has been some months since we last discussed the issue and, although I cannot support some of the absolute propositions in the motion that he has presented to Parliament, I can associate myself very largely with the analysis that he gave in the opening third of his speech regarding the complete failure of the international community to honour the obligations that were made long ago, and certainly at the time of the creation of the state of Israel, to a two-state solution.

What has proved to be too difficult for the minds of many in the international community has led to thousands—indeed, tens of thousands—of unnecessary deaths, and the continuation of a hugely intractable, morally indefensible and appalling international position. I think that everybody with a moral conscience, particularly now, witnessing the excess of deaths that are taking place, would find very little to disagree with in that analysis.

In my lifetime, there have been major conflicts that I thought would always be irresolvable. There were the troubles in Northern Ireland, and the Berlin wall and the conflagration in the Soviet Union—and yet, suddenly, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, both of those were resolved. In Northern Ireland, the Irish Republican Army agreed to decommission weapons and set aside its campaign of violence. The Berlin wall came down when the Soviet Union, under Mikhail Gorbachev, concluded that the international arms race could not be won.

For a moment, under the presidency of Bill Clinton, there was even the prospect that there might be progress that would lead to a more permanent settlement of the issues in the middle east. Ultimately, however, because factions there could not agree, that process fell apart, and literally nothing—I think—has been done to resolve those issues in the years since.

I am unyielding in my belief in, and support for, the state of Israel. I cannot support the proposed arms ban, because I fear that that would embolden Iran, and I am not necessarily sure what the nature of any conflict might escalate to become, were that to happen.

Nevertheless, I understand why people are concerned. I am unyielding in my support for the state of Israel, and, as I should have said, I am enormously pleased that, through the efforts of Humza Yousaf and so many others, the Jewish community in Scotland has not suffered, as many thought that it might, any opprobrium as a result of what is happening in the middle east.

However, the third leg of the stool is the Netanyahu Government, and I have concerns—as have many in my local Jewish community—about the way in which the Netanyahu Government, from which Benny Gantz has now withdrawn, has prosecuted the conflict. I share the concerns of those who think that there are interests closer to Netanyahu’s future that have allowed him to perpetuate the war in the way that he has, which is unacceptable.

We are at a point, therefore, nine months on, when we cannot simply all stand by and say, “This can go on for as long as it likes.” We need to see the hostages being released, but we also have to accept that there has to be progress towards a two-state solution.

I have noted the comments by Keir Starmer, which are not so very different from those of the UK Government. I think that he has moved to say that it would be possible to recognise a Palestinian state when a process is under way, rather than, as was previously the case, when a process has concluded. That is a pragmatic move—although not one to where Mr Yousaf would like it to be. However, it would require there to be a peace process.

I also approve of all the work that Mahmoud Abbas has done in relation to trying to put in place personalities that will be able to develop that process. For the moment, however, for as long as Hamas is in place, the conflict appears to be intractable. Meanwhile, we see—as Humza Yousaf said—tens of thousands of young people being murdered during the conflict, and that, too, is unacceptable.

I think that there is—in spirit, at least—a will among members across the Parliament, irrespective of the side of the debate that we come from, to accept that what is now going on is unacceptable and that progress must be made, and that that progress must end with the recognition of a Palestinian state in a secure two-state environment within the middle east.

I hear what Mr Macpherson says. As well as the scheme that I have identified—the members expenses scheme that was agreed in 2021—a central budget for MSP staff learning and development is in place to deliver all recurring training needs for MSP staff. That budget is managed by the SPCB’s learning and development team. The corporate body is keen to maximise the central budget to the benefit of all MSP staff, in order to realise economies of scale and value for money while ensuring equal and fair access. However, we will look further at Mr Macpherson’s suggestion.

Following a review in 2021 of the reimbursement of members’ expenses scheme, the corporate body delegated authority to the Scottish parliamentary service learning and development team to approve up to £500 per member annually through the incidental and ancillary employment cost provision to facilitate any additional ad hoc job-specific training needs, such as attending seminars and conferences.

Claims in excess of that amount have to be submitted to the SPCB for approval. However, current expenditure against the expenses scheme is extremely low. In 2023-24, there were just four claims against the scheme. Therefore, the corporate body’s view is that there is no current requirement to increase the provision.

As I indicated, there is the £500 dispensation. It is also possible for claims in excess of that to be made and for them to be considered by the corporate body.

More generally, the current corporate body has taken the decision to have a comprehensive review of the entire structure of membership expenses, with a view to making recommendations for the next parliamentary session. Obviously, we will learn from the experience of the provision that we have had during the current parliamentary session to see whether there need to be changes that would accommodate some of the concerns that are being expressed, specifically with regard to Beatrice Wishart’s constituency office as well as others who might be in a similar position.

The corporate body recognises the benefits that a diverse workforce can bring and takes immense pride in the values and culture of this Parliament by providing a positive, inclusive working environment where LGBTQ+ inclusion is embedded in everything that we do. As an employer, the corporate body takes an intersectional approach to diversity and inclusion to address the on-going legacy of historic prejudice and the continuing barriers to full inclusion. We will work in partnership with the recognised trade unions and LGBTQ+ staff to ensure that Parliament remains a visibly inclusive environment.

Finally, the commitment to LGBTQ+ staff members, visitors and the public is long standing and non-negotiable. As in previous years, the corporate body this morning agreed to a request to fly the progress flag this year to mark pride day in Edinburgh.

I was caught off guard, Presiding Officer. I did not think that we would get to number 8.

The corporate body recognises that MSPs’ staffing requirements can fluctuate over time in response to a range of circumstances. The SPCB seeks to operate arrangements that meet MSPs’ needs, while ensuring that the provisions of the reimbursement of members’ expenses scheme are met and that MSPs carry out their responsibilities as employers in accordance with employment law requirements.

Jackson Carlaw MSP has identified an error in his contribution and provided the following correction.

At col 51, paragraph 1—

Original text—

That was the reason why the corporate body came to the position that it did.

Corrected text—

That was the reason why the director of people, communications and inclusion took the decision they did.