Chamber and committees

I am pleased to speak for my party in the debate and I thank Anas Sarwar for all his work with families and victims to shine a spotlight on the important issue that is raised in the motion. It has been three months since members debated the horrific scandal—it is a scandal—at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital. It is more than three years since we learned of serious safety and cleanliness issues at the hospital, which ranged from grime-damaged facilities to contaminated supplies.

QEUH was built to provide the most excellent and efficient healthcare to all who needed it but, in the years after it opened, problems at the hospital had a catastrophic impact on some patients. In December, we heard the stories of some victims of the scandal, including Andrew Slorance, a father of five and dedicated public servant, whose widow, Louise, has had to campaign to hear the full and unvarnished facts about her husband’s death. We also heard about Milly Main, to whom the proposed law is dedicated. Milly passed away in the paediatric hospital when she was just 10 years old.

The tireless campaigning of Milly’s mother, Kimberly Darroch, alongside that of Louise Slorance, has brought much-needed light to the issues to do with transparency at QEUH and the health board that oversees the hospital. It is right that we all applaud their efforts to seek justice and that we acknowledge their bravery in confronting the issues that led to the tragic deaths of their loved ones.

As I have said in the chamber, I am a father of three young children. My daughter is not much younger than Milly was when she died, and my heart breaks for Kimberly and all those who have lost family members as a result of the issues at the hospital. I can only imagine the anguish that they have gone through.

Far too many families have faced barriers in their search for answers. It seems that, too often, when people have been most in need of help and support, doors have been shut in their faces and those people have got the undeniable feeling that the Government and the institutions that are there to serve them in their time of need have acted as a barrier to the truth and justice that they deserved. There is a painful symmetry with the experience of families of the victims of the Hillsborough disaster, who, for years, met obstacle after obstacle in their search for the truth and clarity that they so desperately needed to be able to peacefully lay their loved ones to rest.

The tragedies at QEUH have shone a light on the problem of institutions that too often seek to protect themselves at the expense of offering up the unvarnished truth. That is why my party is pleased to support the motion in Anas Sarwar’s name. It is right that families who find themselves in the most distressing and vulnerable situations imaginable should have access to a representative who will act on their behalf and ensure complete transparency from the beginning and at every stage of an investigation.

Anas Sarwar talked about his hope that this is a watershed moment in our politics. I, too, hope that we are now able to recognise and correct the problems in our institutions when it comes to investigating why things have gone badly wrong. I pray that, out of the unimaginable tragedy of Milly Main’s death, a law in her name and which bears her name might one day be an emblem of the right of every family who experience a tragedy to full transparency, accountability and justice.

Does the member recognise that Elsie Inglis is commemorated in Serbia and France and that it is high time for us to commemorate her here in our nation’s capital?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its plans to resettle Ukrainian refugees in Scotland. (S6O-00836)

I thank the cabinet secretary whole-heartedly for her statement, which is most welcome, as is the legislation that she has introduced. I also thank her for her clarity, because clarity is so important. I echo her hope that we can conduct our debate and scrutiny of the bill in an atmosphere of informed respect. I am confident that the solemn scrutiny of this Parliament will get it right.

I offer the unconditional support of my party for the reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004. The current process is harmful, illiberal and fails to recognise the human rights of transgender people. Does the cabinet secretary share my belief that it is wrong that we still have to ask people to submit their gender to a group of people whom they have never met? Does she also agree that we need to design a system that is compassionate, simple and streamlined, and allows people to live their lives free from discrimination?

Will the cabinet secretary join me in congratulating the BBC on broadcasting transmissions on short-wave radio frequencies so that anyone in Ukraine who has a transistor can hear the truth about what is going on in the conflict?

I am pleased to speak for my party on a topic that is, as members will know, close to my heart. I thank Angus Robertson for making time for the debate this afternoon.

Our public sector broadcasters are vital to the health of our democracy. For the past two years, they have kept us informed and have even managed to create and foster a vital sense of togetherness in our darkest times in the pandemic, amid the isolation of Covid-19. Now, in the middle of one of the worst geopolitics crises that we have seen in our history, while the knot of war tightens around our world, our public broadcasters are on the front line in Ukraine, putting themselves in harm’s way and keeping us up to date with events as they unfold.

It is extraordinary to think that many journalists and camera crews have left the safety of these shores so that each of us can be kept updated in the comfort of our own homes. Their bravery is an example of public sector broadcasting at its finest. We owe them a debt of sincere gratitude for the work that they are doing—I have no doubt that we can all agree on that.

During the past week, we have also witnessed how the Russian state has weaponised disinformation. Make no mistake: that is a weapon that is deliberately used to influence any opposition to Russia’s activities. The kleptocrat tsar who occupies the Kremlin and his gangsters have used their own state-owned media to justify their unjustifiable actions and to spread lies about the Ukrainian leadership and, of course, the Ukrainian people. As the Harvard professor Jane Lytvynenko has said, Russia is preying on the “gaps in knowledge” of western audiences in the hope that a demotivated west will be much less likely to offer help to Ukraine.

Our public sector broadcasters have always played a vital role in holding the line in that battle for truth itself. In doing so, they have awakened us to the plight of the Ukrainian people and galvanised us to protest, donate and volunteer. That demonstrates once again their immeasurable value. Indeed, as I mentioned in my intervention on the cabinet secretary, the BBC took the decision just this week to transmit radio broadcasts on short-wave frequencies to keep everyone with a transistor in Ukraine informed, even as their TV towers are being bombed and internet services are being brought down. We do not get that level of service with a Netflix subscription.

It is simply not possible to achieve the calibre of journalism to which we in Scotland have become accustomed without public funding. Public funding shields our broadcasters from the influence of shareholders and other corporate interference. We must always legislate to protect that. That goes for the BBC and, of course, Channel 4 as well.

Over three weeks ago, I lodged a motion for a members’ business debate on the future of the BBC—that has already been mentioned in this debate. I was grateful that members from all parties came to speak in favour of what was widely acknowledged to be a crucial public service. That mirrored the reaction of many people across Scotland and the UK when they saw a much-treasured public institution come under threat from Nadine Dorries and the Conservative Party. Many people, regardless of their political stripes, spoke up in the BBC’s defence, including, I dare say, some Conservatives.

It is to our great shame that some of our journalists and broadcasters have not always been treated with the respect that they deserve. Two weeks ago, we learned of the abuse that was suffered by the former BBC Scotland editor Sarah Smith simply for doing her job and by virtue of who her father was. She was relentlessly harassed online and in person. She faced attacks that were often tainted with misogynistic bile, all of which culminated in an environment that was, as she said, so toxic that she made the decision to leave Scotland altogether. That is shameful.

Sadly, Sarah Smith is not alone. I could name a number of journalists at the BBC, Channel 4 and STV who have been subject to online abuse just for doing their job. Although we may not always enjoy being at the end of a line of questioning from a journalist, that does not mean that we should allow for them to be on the receiving end of a barrage of abuse from those who support us. We must publicly oppose that type of behaviour, regardless of from where it comes. I call on all parties to reflect on that.

All of us in the chamber recognise—

I conclude by saying that only when we protect our public service broadcasting do we protect our politics, our culture and our free democracy.

Will the minister give way?

I am grateful to the minister for giving way. He is doing a grand job of spinning the settlement, but I wonder whether he has spoken to his fellow ministers, Lorna Slater and Ben Macpherson, who were utterly eviscerated at Friday’s conference of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities for the reality of what the settlement means for local cuts.

I rise to speak for the Liberal Democrats in this important debate. As Miles Briggs said, it is not just a technical debate. The tone of the minister’s speech was—quite frankly—astonishing, because it jarred terribly with the message that we are all receiving from councils, councillors and public servants, who are at the sharp end of the coalition Government’s choices.

As I said in my intervention, last Friday, I was on the panel discussion at COSLA’s annual conference, as was Miles Briggs. Alongside me were Ben Macpherson and Lorna Slater, and their defence of the local government settlement was entirely eviscerated. Public servants from across Scotland spoke out about the devastating choices that they are being forced to make as a result of the cuts. I do not know whether the SNP and Green ministers did not feed anything back from that meeting or whether they tried and failed to effect any change, but it is deeply regrettable that there has been no rethink.

At stage 3 of the budget, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy set the same elephant trap as her predecessors did. Year after year, the SNP lay down a punishing cut to councils, only to offer a little extra cash at the 11th hour and expect to be lauded as heroes for so doing. However, let us make no mistake that deleting £370 million from the budget, only to restore £120 million, still leads to a £250 million cut. As Anas Sarwar said at the COSLA event, it is a bit like someone taking £20 from your wallet and giving £5 back then expecting to be thanked for it. From the COSLA conference, it was clear that nobody who is involved at any level of running public services is fooled by the claim that there is any funding boost or additional funding. Everyone can see right through those tricks.

There are no heroes today on the Government benches. That includes Scottish Green Party ministers, who have been busy this week claiming that they are having an influence in government and getting things done. What I did not see among the slim pickings in the press and social media was the Scottish Greens taking the credit for their coalition’s £250 million cut to our local authorities. It is the single biggest decision that they have made since entering government, and it is a rotten one—it stinks. Our Green and SNP MSPs do not want to own it because there is no escaping the harm that it will do to local services in every community and every corner of Scotland.

I end my speech with an appeal, because those same communities are already busy working out what they can do to help the people of Ukraine. I have written to the Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, Angus Robertson, to ask him to ensure that local authorities are provided with new funding to support people who are fleeing the invasion. Last week, STV News revealed that as many as 300 Afghans remain in temporary bridging accommodation and 151 are still in hotels here in Edinburgh. That is nowhere near good enough. We are not ready for an influx of refugees.

I am determined that both Scotland and the UK should make generous offers of support to people who have to leave their country in fear for their lives. There is not a moment to lose in preparing our offers of safe harbour. There is not a moment to lose in preparing our councils and communities to receive people, with all that that means for services such as housing, education and health. Preparations must be backed by funding, to ensure that everyone who arrives is given every opportunity to start a new life—and for the long term, if need be.

I hope that the minister will address the issue in his closing speech and say when plans will be published and what support the Scottish Government is prepared to give local authorities as they get ready to receive those refugees.