Chamber and committees

I noted the statement that there should be no single-sex committees in the Parliament. How would Martin Whitfield ensure that that would be delivered?

I realise that, as a child of the 1950s, I am the oldest MSP contributing to the debate this afternoon, but I assure the minister that I have no first-hand recollection of the events of 1774 or earlier, so I am not able to respond to his request in quite the way that he might have expected.

I realise that a special meeting of the Parliament is taking place this afternoon in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse, but I am immediately impressed by the quality of the contributions that I have been able to witness so far in the debate. I do not know whether there is a collective noun for conveners, but I enjoyed hearing from Audrey Nicoll, Richard Leonard and, of course, Kenny Gibson. I join in Stephen Kerr’s tribute to Kenny Gibson. It is my job—as it was once yours, Deputy Presiding Officer—to present, on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, the Parliament’s budget to the Finance and Public Administration Committee each year. I am always a model of circumspection and moderation in so doing, and I am always immensely impressed by the convener’s robust handling of the issues that we discuss, especially when it comes to the issue of MSP remuneration.

Are there any changes to the Parliament’s procedures and practices that would help the committees to work more effectively? The challenge that arises from this afternoon’s discussion very much reminds me of the early days of the coalition UK Government, when it sought to embrace the challenge of House of Lords reform. One might have thought that, with a coalition rather than a majority Government, the land was best placed for some sort of collective agreement to emerge. However, in fact, each of the proposals, some of which were eminently sensible, found a different coalition of interests that was opposed to it, so nothing transpired. The challenge for the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee will be to take forward some of what I think will be a degree of agreed thinking in the chamber this afternoon and transform it into something that might lead to the Parliament being more effective.

When this Parliament was created, it joined the Parliaments of North Korea, Nicaragua, Mozambique, China and Cuba in being unicameral. The suggestion was that we did not need another chamber—of course, we do not, as we are one of the most over-governed countries in the world, and the last thing that we need is a second chamber. However, the promise was that our committee system would be the vanguard or bulwark of democratic accountability that would counteract inappropriate, badly drafted or simply wrong legislation. The question before us is, have we succeeded in doing that? The answer is that we have sometimes done so, but not always. That leads to the issues that are before us today.

I sympathise, for example, with the views that have been expressed about gender balance, and the fact that we should not have single-sex committees. I am the convener of such a committee myself now. It did not start that way, but we had a woman on the committee who was promoted to another committee, and there was not another woman available to put in her place. When another committee member left, we had two women from their party in rapid succession, after which that place was filled by a man. Then, another party changed its representative but declined to appoint a woman to the place. The way in which our committees are constructed makes it difficult to find a formula that will achieve mixed-sex committees without having a lot of red tape at the start of the session that requires parties not only to abide by d’Hondt but to nominate a member of a particular sex in order to achieve the continuity of gender balance.

I take the point that, if there is no gender balance in the Parliament, having a gender balance on committees would possibly lead to far more work falling on a handful of representatives—that would certainly have been the case with the Conservative Party in this session.

Of course, continuity is a difficult thing to achieve, partly because people are promoted within their party to take on more senior roles, which changes the face of their representation. My committee has faced problems with continuity, too. The minister referred to our report containing our final recommendations on deliberative democracy, which the Parliament will debate early in June, but I note that there are only two members of the committee who have been through the whole of that committee inquiry and taken part in every stage of the development of the recommendations.

The Conservative Party is the only party in the chamber that has never had a taste of government in the devolved era, so we do not have the same vested interests as the other parties do in maintaining certain safeguards. Our view is that we should do away with d’Hondt in the construction of committees. If that were done, the smaller parties would have greater representation across the various committees, and it would achieve the ambition of the committees being more independent of Government and being able to scrutinise with more authority. Our view is that that would give additional emphasis to the notion that the committees are, in fact, an essential part of holding the Government to account and thus of ensuring democratic accountability.

We are not altogether sure about whether there should be elected conveners. I was part of the previous Presiding Officer’s commission that first suggested electing and remunerating conveners. I am not sure about those suggestions, but I am sure that a number of conveners, particularly in the Conveners Group—which is a group that in some respects I think we could do without, because I am not quite sure what it achieves; I say that with the greatest respect to you, Deputy Presiding Officer, as the chair of it—are unsure about what their level of authority and responsibility is. Almost more important than conveners being elected or remunerated would be a clear understanding of what the authority of a committee convener is to act. I am aware that some feel able to act and others feel constrained by the committee as to what they can do. That probably interferes with the democratic accountability function.

We would also like to see the creation of a full-time post-legislative scrutiny committee. That is not an original idea, and we have gone round the houses on it. I hoped that deliberative democracy might offer an opportunity, but I do not think that the deliberative democracy model was particularly successful. We know that we are all supposed to do more post-legislative scrutiny, but we are unable to do so within the construction and constraints that exist. That is our principal view.

In relation to committee size, the smaller the committee is, the better. Five to seven members has worked better but, in our model of doing away with d’Hondt, there would probably be more opportunity for authority and for representation from other parties.

I hope that there is a general interest in this issue in Parliament. Normally in the Conservative Party, when you get the whip’s broadcast, if it says that you are speaking on Thursday afternoon and no division is expected, you rather feel that you have been consigned to the graveyard shift, because everybody else might have left. Notwithstanding the fact that we are here on a Thursday afternoon to discuss the issue, I hope that there is a genuine interest in it rather than a “you will be here to discuss it this afternoon” interest. I can see that everybody who has contributed to the debate so far wants to contribute and has genuine personal experience and ideas to contribute. I hope that we can translate those into something that committee conveners can take forward in a meaningful way so that we achieve the change that we would like to see.

As the last speaker from my party who will be speaking in favour of the bill, I say: what a day and what an afternoon. This has been the Parliament at its very best. At times such as this, the Parliament is much bigger than the sum of its parts. Members have been speaking without a party line, whip or pre-prepared script, so there have been some deeply moving and incredibly powerful contributions from all sides of the chamber.

I will not repeat all that has been said in the debate, because we have heard many testimonies and personal arguments, and many fundamental issues have been raised. Members who were able to be at the demonstration at lunch time had an opportunity to hear from some of those who are deeply affected by the issues that are raised in the bill, such as Dianne Risbridger, who is suffering from renal cancer and wants to have the opportunity to decide her end of life. She said that it is better to have the opportunity and not use it than to need it and then find that you do not have it.

Stephen Wisniewski talked about his mother’s extraordinarily painful death, which he and his brother had to progress through. Louise Shackleton talked about accompanying her husband to Dignitas in Switzerland. She made the point that he had to go far earlier than he needed to, and that if the opportunity for such a choice existed here, he would still be alive today, but he felt that he had to end his life at a point when he was still able to undertake that. We also heard from a woman whose husband was in the Royal Navy—a 50-something veteran who had inoperable brain cancer and who, on his third attempt at suicide, succeeded. Just think about what those people went through.

I pay tribute to Liam McArthur and the extraordinary work that he and generations of his teams have done. I also pay tribute to the committee’s work—Clare Haughey’s introduction of the committee’s consideration was deeply powerful.

I was in the Parliament for the two previous bills on this issue. I cannot look up to where Paul Sweeney and Maggie Chapman are sitting and not think of Margo MacDonald sitting in one or other of those two seats. She was hugely big-hearted and enormously compassionate, with an enormous personality. It is lovely that Peter Warren, who was her indefatigable parliamentary assistant, is up in the gallery and has been listening to the debate throughout our proceedings today.

I was also in the Parliament to support Patrick Harvie’s bill. It was probably the first and last time that I ever supported him in the chamber, which was probably a relief to him and me. I read through both of the stage 1 debates, and it strikes me that the world and the debate have moved on. The direction of travel has changed. I was the only Conservative who voted in favour of the previous bill on this issue. This time, although we may be in the minority, far more Conservatives are prepared to do so.

That is the direction of travel across the world and in public opinion, as shown by those who have made representations to us today. When I read the transcripts of the previous debates, I saw that the churches, the clinicians and all the medical practitioners were fundamentally against the principle of assisted dying. Now, they have moved to being neutral or taking a different view. Three of the four most recent leaders of my party believe that the legislation should be supported. The Parliament should have the courage to move forward, too.

I have been very engaged with the principle of deliberative democracy in this parliamentary session. One of the most interesting things to come from all those who have participated in the pilots, or whom I met elsewhere, is that they can accept a no if the issue is fully discussed, and they can accept a yes, even if it goes against what they believe, if the issue is fully discussed.

Therefore, I appeal to all members to allow us to have the fullest possible discussion of the issue, to take a breath for a moment and to look around the chamber that Enric Miralles built for us. Was it built to be a chamber where we closed down discussion, or was it built to be a chamber where we opened our hearts and our minds to the widest possible discussion of the most fundamental and difficult issues that we as a Parliament are ever asked to face?

I believe that we were not elected to be a nest of fearties. I accept that, if the bill progresses, it might end up with people concluding that they cannot support it, but surely it is our duty to all those out there who believe that there is an issue that we should explore more fundamentally that we do not, for the third time, after one debate, simply say, “This far and no further.” Let us take the issue and examine it fully.

I say to those who have talked about palliative care that I support the debate that Miles Briggs has begun. However, I note that, in both the previous debates—15 and 10 years ago—everybody said the same thing: that we need to do more in relation to palliative care. Here we are, still saying the same thing. That cannot be something that we hide behind.

Finally, in relation to one of the previous bills, a Church of Scotland minister turned to me and said, “Jackson, we all have a right to life, but we don’t have a duty to live.” The issue before us today is whether we believe that people should have the choice—in that final analysis, and in those final days with a terminal illness—as to whether they should be supported to make their own decision. Let us explore the issue further and give justification to those who have fought for it and to the architects of the bill by passing it at stage 1.

I do not think that there has been a discernible theme this afternoon; there have been a lot of very individual contributions.

I note the contributions by my very good friends and colleagues, Mr Stephen Kerr and Mr Ross. They were so well made that I will not repeat them; perhaps I will look to contribute in my own way.

I will start on the commentary from the First Minister about the Drumlanrig accord. I think that we in Scotland should be incredibly proud of it. Sheikh Razawi, my very good friend Edward Green, the First Minister and I and others were at Edinburgh city chambers last year for the candle-lighting ceremony. Against the odds, in many ways, it was decided to bring the faiths together to face the challenge that the international situation presented to the lives of all of us here at home. With the support of His Grace the Duke of Buccleuch, who was able to enlist the support of His Majesty the King, we have a very positive initiative being taken here, in Scotland, which is allowing those of so many different faiths and communities to exist in harmony here, even with the extraordinary pressures that are being applied by the events outside this country. We should celebrate the work that has been done, and we should be very proud of that Scottish initiative, which is contributing so well in the face of the international situation. [Applause.]

Over the Easter recess I turned 66 the day before the First Minister turned 61—so there is just five years between us. I know that, in another context, that would be regarded as a lifetime but, in the context of today’s debate, it is not really that long at all. I was reflecting, in advance of this debate, on what I thought were—from a long menu—the key things that had shaped the international situation over my lifetime. I thought of the visit of Nixon to China in 1972, the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1979, the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989 and the events in New York on 9/11. All of those events had profound consequences for the world in which we live today.

Over my lifetime, we have gone from being concerned, as a country, about the might of the Soviet Union and its empire, influence and threat, which meant that many of my generation thought that a war was at least possible in our lifetime, to the fall of the Soviet Union and the extent of state-sponsored terrorism or terrorism sponsored by nobody in particular—which nobody quite knew how to deal with, as it did not have a nation face. That receded slightly, but not so much that we can be in any way complacent. Then, the threat of the nation state emerged again, with the impact of Russia, as it now seeks to initiate military conflict on the continent of Europe, the emerging suggestion of a threat to Taiwan from China, the on-going expansion and ambition of North Korea, and states conflicting with one other in the middle east and Africa. Perhaps, for my grandchildren’s generation, the prospect of a war, if not probable, once again cannot be ruled out.

There is a need, as I think Governments have recognised in this international situation, to respond to that by trying to understand how best we can be prepared. That response comes in two ways, I think. One is to ensure that we invest in the defence of the country. That is the reactive way to ensure that we are prepared, should such a situation emerge. The other is the proactive way, which involves our commitment, tradition and history as a country that is involved in international trade, that wants to engage and that has been prepared to invest in international aid. We have not talked about that today, but I was very critical of my own Government at Westminster when it temporarily reduced the aid budget, and I said that I hoped that it could be restored, so I am disappointed at the response of the Labour Party to the proposed cut in international aid, because it is that aid that helps to ensure that we are investing in countries that might otherwise become part of the very international situation and problem that we are trying to stand against and prevent occurring.

I think that I am now into my last few seconds, so I am not sure—

I will take an intervention from Daniel Johnson.

My good friend Bishop John Keenan will lead a mass for Pope Francis this evening, in Paisley abbey, on behalf of the diocese. I wonder whether Mr Adam hopes to be able to be present.

I agree with that, and I would like to hear a little more from members of the Labour Party, who, I think, must be troubled by it. I understand the need and have just made the case for an investment in our defences, but I am concerned that that investment is being made at the expense of the influence and aid that are vital in preventing conflict elsewhere.

In a debate that we had five years ago, I said that the Americans faced an unenviable choice between someone who was unsuited and someone who was unfit to be in the White House. In that battle, we had President Biden, but I felt that it was not the choice that the American people should have been given.

The American people need to have a complete generational shift away from those who have billions of pounds that they can afford to spend on being elected. It is ironic that Nixon was the last poor president. We need that change to take place, because Trump’s election—in both cases—was almost a reaction to the candidate that he faced. Hillary Clinton was a very polarising figure. Joe Biden was not a polarising figure but he could certainly not have hoped to be a subsequent President. Had he recognised that sooner, the Democratic Party might have had the opportunity to think more widely about who its candidate should have been, although I do not know what the outcome of the election would have been.

I am not a fan of Mr Trump, but I do not conclude, as Patrick Harvie does, that we should just abandon our investment in, our relationship with and our hope in the United States. In some respects, President Trump is not wrong: 80 years after VE day, as Neil Bibby pointed out, the other countries of Europe also have a responsibility to step up to the defence of our continent. There cannot just be an on-going expectation that the United States will do that.

Patrick Harvie rose—

Daniel Johnson rose—

Absolutely. This quote from The Economist is pretty apt:

“In a mere ten days the president has ended the old certainties that underpinned the world economy, replacing them with extraordinary levels of volatility and confusion. Some of the chaos may have abated for now. But it will take a very long time to rebuild what has been lost.”

We must accept and acknowledge that we now face a very challenging situation.

I want us to respond to the international situation. We can talk about it here; I am not so averse to our having a discussion about it from time to time. However, I do not think that we have the major levers to influence it. Part of our responsibility, therefore, is to support our elected MPs at Westminster in the discharge of their responsibility to keep us safe and secure and to ensure that we are engaged positively with the rest of the world. That has to be built on two rocks: we must keep ourselves safe and invest in the security of our country, but we must also invest in outreach, engagement and proactivity in addressing the trouble spots that emerge elsewhere in the world, through which we could subsequently feel threatened.

I have been appalled by an unprecedented series of sectarian attacks targeting St Joseph’s primary school in Busby, which is in my Eastwood constituency, in the past few weeks. The buildings were sprayed with offensive and sectarian discriminatory graffiti and the outdoor play area was set on fire. This past weekend, there was a further arson attack on a children’s area. The school community has been left stupefied and, naturally, distressed, but I pay tribute to Police Scotland and East Renfrewshire Council for the decisive way in which they have intervened to seek to make the community feel safe.

Earlier this month, St Joseph’s received a glowing report from Education Scotland for the exemplary standard of education that the school is providing. Today, of all days, when all of us here are reminded that we live, learn, work and play together, will the First Minister join me in offering a show of solidarity with the St Joseph’s community and make clear that, here in Scotland, faith will not be used as a force for division but that, together, all faiths and those of none must work and come together in order to create the community in which we all want Scotland to live? [Applause.]