Chamber and committees

Again, I say with respect that it is not the Government’s place to handhold a committee and talk through the entire process of how it might want to consider such matters. There is a limit to how far I can undertake that exercise. The point is that the Government has engaged with the committee, we have had the feedback from the convener, and I have now lodged the motion to vary standing orders.

The Parliament should go into this with its eyes wide open and be aware that, if we do not agree to the motion, the Parliament will not have the opportunity to determine whether to grant or withhold consent. With the best will in the world, we all have to recognise, based on experience, that, if we do not take that opportunity, the UK Government will not halt its processes and will not withdraw its bill—it will go ahead whether or not we have had the chance to determine that. That is not in the spirit of the devolution settlement, so I ask Parliament to back the motion.

I believe that that was communicated to all business managers—that is my understanding—and it was certainly communicated to me. With the best will in the world, I can do only so much to try to facilitate committee consideration. At every opportunity that I have, I will seek to do so. However, the fundamental fact is that the timescale for the consideration of this UK bill is not in the hands of the Scottish Parliament.

I recognise that it is regrettable that I must stand before Parliament today and ask that it suspend standing orders to allow the first motion on legislative consent in this parliamentary session to come straight to the chamber.

By way of background, the UK Government introduced the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill on 14 May 2026. It had been announced in the King’s speech the previous day. There was no substantive engagement from the UK Government on the bill prior to its introduction—the Secretary of State for Business and Trade wrote to the First Minister only on 13 May, setting out the intent to introduce the bill the following day.

The timing of the bill’s introduction—it was after the Scottish Parliament elections and during the period of Government formation—was always going to be challenging, but that has been compounded by the lack of prior engagement from the UK Government, despite its intent to expedite the passage of the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill through the UK Parliament.

There will be no opportunity for the Scottish Parliament to consider whether to grant legislative consent to the bill after our summer recess—it is important to press that point. On the UK Government and UK Parliament timescale, we will not have the opportunity to consider whether to grant consent after our summer recess.

I was going to come on to that. I recognise that point, and it was considered, given Ms Hamilton’s concerns. There was engagement with the Economy, Tourism and Energy Committee, and the convener of that committee indicated that he was content for the committee not to consider the LCM in this case. With the greatest will in the world and the greatest respect, the Government can do only so much—indeed, the Parliamentary Bureau collectively can do only so much. The Government engaged with the committee to offer it that opportunity, recognising that it would not be an ideal timescale or ideal circumstances, but the committee said that it did not want to do that.

The member will appreciate that the Government cannot compel a committee to undertake scrutiny that it does not want to undertake, and I do not think that Parliament would want the Government to do that. That is why the Parliamentary Bureau has agreed to seek to expedite the vote on the motion on legislative consent to ensure that Parliament can take its collective view next week.

With the best will in the world, I say to Mr Sweeney that that sounds very much like a matter for the substantive debate on the LCM next week, when Parliament decides to grant or withhold consent. The Scottish Government has taken a position and is presenting that to Parliament, and it will be incumbent on Parliament to consider that position. My fundamental point—this is inescapable—is that, if we do not agree to the variation in standing orders today, Parliament will not have that opportunity.

I begin by doing what all members have done and thank Jenny Young for securing the motion for debate in the Parliament, and I congratulate her on her first members’ business debate, on what is clearly an important subject. In the spirit of our discussion, I agree with Stephen Kerr, which I do not do often, that Jenny Young’s contribution was outstanding. Indeed, we have had a range of important and well-informed contributions, for which I am grateful.

The debate has provided us with an opportunity to acknowledge the 10th anniversary of Jo Cox’s terrible murder and to reflect on what she stood for. We should remember that she and, indeed, David Amess were killed as they undertook and discharged their responsibilities as parliamentarians and constituency representatives. We should also remind ourselves that their deaths were not just individual tragedies in that sense; in effect, they were an attack on democracy—a reminder that democracy can be fragile and is often under threat.

I did not know Jo Cox, as others have said, but it is very clear from all that I have seen and read about her and from what has been said in the debate that she brought clear intelligence, energy and compassion to the pursuit of the type of society that we would all want to see, where our communities and our democracy are strengthened by connection, trust and respect. As we have heard, those themes have become her important legacy and are evident across all that she did during her career, which was dedicated to improving the lives of those in need. I believe that all of us in public life strive for that and that we have all been motivated to enter politics for those reasons. Maybe that is a reminder of the point that David Linden made about the common ground that exists between us all. We have different perspectives on how to achieve those ends, but that is what we are all driven by, although I cannot say that I intend to play tennis with anyone in the chamber at any point—I resist the invitation that I am getting from the sidelines.

Members have noted the important work of the Jo Cox Foundation. My predecessor, Graeme Dey, met representatives of the foundation in October last year as they were developing the recommendations for “A Renewed Call to Action for the Devolved Nations” to address abuse and intimidation in politics, which Jenny Young noted. The call to action was published in February and includes recommendations for individual parties and politicians, as well as the Parliament and the Scottish Government, to consider. It may be useful to provide an update on some of the activity that the Government has undertaken in response and, indeed, some of the work that was already under way in education. We would all recognise that ensuring that our young people are properly informed is an important and critical element of the activity.

Last week, Education Scotland published guidance for schools on responding to far-right extremism and racism in current events, which I think is particularly pertinent and important. It picks up on Carol Mochan’s point about responding to the immediate challenges that are before us. There is new time for inclusive education and digital discourse resources to help provide teachers with information and strategies to address the effects of online hate and disinformation, in response to some of the challenges in public life.

I remind colleagues that, in the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Act 2025, we—or, I should say, colleagues in the previous parliamentary session—collectively made provisions to bar those found guilty of offences involving intimidation of campaigners, candidates and elected representatives from being able to stand for office as a member of the Scottish Parliament or as a councillor. We also created a new disqualification order that would apply to those who are guilty of offences involving intimidation of electoral workers.

I recognise that there is a particular challenge with the intimidation that women in politics face. We are providing funding for Engender, which has worked with other members of the Equal Representation Coalition to develop the equal representation in politics toolkit. We have also provided funding for Elect Her, which is working with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to host workshops to provide female councillors with a space to share resources and advice for women who are considering standing for public office.

I hope that that is helpful by way of updating on some of the activity that the Government is undertaking, but I recognise that there will always be more to be done, and we should work collaboratively in that regard.

We should recognise the challenges that we face, but Adam Harley made an important point: that the general experience of being involved in politics is a good one. Just as he spoke of, I like nothing more than to engage with the constituents I represent in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth. By and large, that is a positive experience. I enjoy very much being able to go out and meet the individuals and organisations that I represent. However, we should be aware of, not pretend otherwise and shy away from, the fact that the level of abuse and intimidation of candidates and elected representatives is unacceptably high. I agree with Stephen Kerr that we should consider that, for some people, that acts as a disincentive in the first place from coming forward to stand. That should concern us all, and we should respond. The Government, the parties and the Parliament as an institution have a role to play in that regard.

I say to Ms Young that I am pretty sure that every debate that I schedule is designed to do that. It is then over to colleagues to deliver on the rest. However, I am always willing to hear what topics members might like to be brought forward.

I will finish on a point that has been made by a number of members, which is about the language that we use. Freedom of speech, the right to free assembly and the right to protest are fundamental to a free society and a liberal democracy. However, all too often, of late, some people out there have articulated their activities as being predicated on those principles but have veered into the type of language that I find reprehensible. Many of us—most of us; all of us, indeed—find it reprehensible. Those people are causing concern. In that regard, Q Manivannan was right about the importance of the choice of language that we deploy. We should all remember that. Michelle Campbell and Patricia Gibson made the point about the manner in which we seek to engage in discourse.

When we see some of the activities that are causing real concern and are motivated by various forms of extremism—right now, the main challenge is far-right extremism, which we have seen on our streets in the past few days—we must show leadership. We must call out any rhetoric of that nature. That is something that I am committed to, and we should commit to it collectively, because that is the type of call that, I think, Jo Cox, her foundation and, indeed, Ms Young, in this members’ business debate, have sought to make. We must all aspire to achieve that.

Meeting closed at 18:53.

I hate to disappoint Ivan McKee, but his speech was not the last speech before the world cup. I will also undoubtedly disappoint other members given that we are looking to get out, but I will not take too long.

Members will be aware that standing orders require the Parliamentary Bureau, when establishing committees, to normally ensure that the proposed membership reflects the gender balance of the Parliament. Where that is not the case, any member of the bureau is required, when moving the motion on committee membership, to explain the reasons why that has not been achieved.

Alongside ensuring gender balance when identifying committee members, parties must take several other important factors into account. Those include the preferences and interests of individual members and whether members have other parliamentary commitments that might conflict with their committee duties.

In achieving a degree of gender balance, we are also reliant on the overall balance of members who are elected to the Parliament at the start of the session. The overall balance between the number of men and women in the Parliament is not the same as the balance in some of the individual parties that are represented here.

Taking account of all those factors, there have been significant challenges in achieving gender balance at the individual committee level. However, I inform members that memberships across all 16 committees are strongly reflective of the gender balance across the Parliament as a whole. The bureau is therefore satisfied that we can progress on that basis.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees the membership of committees of the Parliament as follows—

Climate Action Committee

Membership: Stuart McMillan, Ariane Burgess, David Barrett, Martyn Day, Claire Baker, Sanna Dijkstra-Downie, Douglas Lumsden.

Criminal Justice Committee

Membership: Alyn Smith, David Linden, Marie McNair, Maggie Chapman, Pauline McNeill, Amanda Bland, Stephen Kerr.

Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee

Membership: Calum Kerr, Q Manivannan, Colm Merrick, Amanda Lindsay, Paul Sweeney.

Economy, Tourism and Energy Committee

Membership: Duncan Massey, Daniel Johnson, Kate Campbell, Gary Bouse, Martyn Day, Kristopher Leask, Rachael Hamilton.

Education and Gaelic Committee

Membership: Karen Adam, Katherine Sangster, George Adam, Patricia Gibson, Duncan Dunlop, Angela Ross, Laura Moodie.

Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee

Membership: Katie Hagmann, Meghan Gallacher, Collette Stevenson, Fulton MacGregor, Holly Bruce, Amanda Lindsay, Carol Mochan.

Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee

Membership: Patrick Harvie, Senga Beresford, Colin Beattie, Keith Brown, Pauline Stafford, Jenny Young, David Green.

Finance and Public Administration Committee

Membership: Clare Haughey, Alan Brown, Pauline Stafford, Michael Marra, Kim Schmulian, Liam Kerr, Liam McArthur.

Health, Care and Sport Committee

Membership: Helen McDade, Jack Middleton, Paul McLennan, Heather Anderson, Joe Long, Adam Harley, Kayleigh Kinross-O’Neill.

Public Audit Committee

Membership: Neil Bibby, Dawn Black, Alan Brown, Miles Briggs, David Kirkwood.

Public Petitions Committee

Membership: Paul Sweeney, David Torrance, Marie McNair, Julie MacDougall, Cara McKee.

Public Service Reform Committee

Membership: Bob Doris, Michelle Campbell, Alex Kerr, Max Bannerman, Lorna Slater, Joe Fagan, Murdo Fraser.

Rural Affairs Committee

Membership: Mark Ruskell, Andrew Baxter, Laura Mitchell, Emma Roddick, Dawn Black, Jamie Langan, Finlay Carson.

Social Justice, Housing and Local Government Committee

Membership: Craig Hoy, Thomas Kerr, Steven Bonnar, Kate Campbell, Gary Bouse, Mark Griffin, Morven-May MacCallum.

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee

Membership: Jenni Minto, Tim Eagle, David Linden, Mark Simpson, Jackie Baillie.

Transport Committee

Membership: Willie Rennie, Lloyd Melville, Zen Ghani, Collette Stevenson, Iris Duane, Donald MacKinnon, Graham Simpson.

I will move and speak to the motion, Presiding Officer.

That was a wonderful pre-prepared line delivered tremendously well, Ms Lindsay. We look forward to much more of that.

The past few weeks have been uncomfortable, difficult and very distressing for many of us—I will not pretend otherwise. No one would believe me if I did. However, I do not think that any of us should pretend that this debate has been anything other than a particularly unedifying spectacle.

The notion of an inquiry that is authorised by Parliament into one party’s finances has now been debated, and it is now for Parliament to decide on that. I hope that Stephen Kerr is not too disappointed, but I will revert back to all the reasons that I laid out in my opening remarks. For the various reasons that I laid out, I urge Parliament to reject the proposition of a parliamentary inquiry, as set out in Mr Sarwar’s motion. I know that Mr Kerr—there are a lot of Kerrs here, so I should refer to them by their first names. Mr Stephen Kerr suggested that it was beneath me to question the motivation for lodging the motion that we are debating today. I merely say that I feel obliged to point out that my cynicism is born out of bitter experience.

I do not think that any of us should pretend that people out there are stupid. People out there will understand perfectly well why the Labour Party lodged the motion, and they will understand perfectly well why Reform UK, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats support it. Those parties want to make political capital. Let us not pretend that it is about anything other than that.

I genuinely believe that it would set a very bad precedent if Parliament established a parliamentary inquiry into the internal workings and finances of an individual political party. That would be a poor decision, and I think that, collectively, we would come to regret it. Colm Merrick was right to set out that, inevitably, we would all seek to return to that process whenever an individual party faced some form of difficulty.

However, today’s debate has demonstrated something important. It has demonstrated that, across the chamber, there is agreement that a serious breach of trust took place. That was a breach by one individual—the former chief executive of my party—of the trust of the members who placed faith in him. However, agreement on the seriousness of that and those events does not justify what is proposed in the motion. We should not establish that a parliamentary committee that is comprised of elected representatives of competing political parties is the right mechanism by which to scrutinise the internal financial operations of one of the parties.