Katy Clark
Scottish Labour · Scotland
“I welcome the fact that we are taking steps to reduce the prison population, but there needs to be a wider discussion—I think that we are all agreed on that. Community justice must be expanded.”
“The chamber has been designed so that members speak through the chair, which also means that the microphones will work. If you face me, your microphone should work. Alyn Smith: I am grateful to Amanda Bland for her comment. She is a good colleague on the Criminal Justice Committee, and, as ever, that was a sensible question.”
“Yesterday, I met constituents outside the Parliament who are concerned about the potential impact on local communities and the environment of the energy consumption of proposed AI data centres in Irvine, Bishopbriggs and Hunterston, in my region. At least 24 controversial sites are being considered across Scotland.”
“The member cannot take an intervention, as she is already in additional time. Pauline McNeill: I will conclude with a specific point on deaths in custody, which the Criminal Justice Committee had a brief chat about on Wednesday morning.”
“I move amendment S7M-00469.2, to insert at end: “; is concerned that the current prison population crisis is chronically hampering effective rehabilitation; calls on the Scottish Government to increase its investment in GPS technology and speed up its roll out, and notes that the current approach to rehabilitation, community justice and e…”
“I understand that there is a request for national guidance, but that would be a deviation from where we are as a Parliament. However, if the mood of the Parliament is changing, the Government is open to listening, and that is a conversation to be had.”
The complete record
Every one of 635 lines we hold for Katy Clark, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 13.
“The member is winding up and has already taken his additional time. The general rule is that interventions should not be made while winding up. Liam Kerr: I apologise to Kate Nevens. We will talk offline. The solutions in the Conservative manifesto included things such as tougher regulations for tackling the e-bike problem with mandatory registration and licensing; increasing maximum fines and a three-strikes policy for antisocial behaviour and shoplifting; ensuring meaningful and genuine community sentences; and increasing police patrols—there were much more besides. I say to the minister that we have a major issue with antisocial behaviour in Scotland, which the Government has utterly failed to get a handle on.”
“The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S7M-00018, in the name of Colin Beattie, on recognising the damaging impact of antisocial behaviour. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. Motion debated, That the Parliament recognises what it sees as the damaging impact that antisocial behaviour has on communities, including in Midlothian North; understands that this behaviour impacts on residents’ safety and hurts local businesses; believes that there is a need to support young people and their families to ensure that such behaviour is stopped at the source; recognises the hard work of Police Scotland in dealing with the issue, and notes calls for the Scottish Government to review and continue to support programmes aimed at preventing youth antisocial behaviour. 17:34”
“The next item of business is a debate on motion S7M-00309, in the name of Ivan McKee, on public service reform: empowering staff, service users and local communities. 15:14”
“I apologise to the members I was unable to call. Before we move on to the next item of business, I will allow a moment for front-bench teams to change over. Public Service Reform (Staff, Service Users and Local Communities)”
“Members must refer to other members by their full names. Angela Constance: For the record, over the past 10 years there has been a 13 per cent increase in the number of qualified midwives, which equates to just under 318 whole-time equivalents. Nonetheless, there are significant workforce issues to be addressed. As I said, I will meet the Royal College of Midwives later today, and Maree Todd will continue to be involved in the nursing and midwifery task force, which has been designed specifically to look at those workforce issues. Recruitment can be a challenge, particularly in rural areas, and we need to retain those who join that very important vocation. There is work to do, but I assure Ms McDade that we are well and truly on the journey.”
“The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in the statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move to the next item of business. It would be helpful if members who wish to ask a question were to press their request-to-speak buttons now. Thirteen members have indicated that they wish to ask a question of the cabinet secretary. To enable all those questions to be put and answered, questions and answers will require to be brief.”
“There is certainly no sense of arrogance to this point, but I gently remind folk that we went through that election after all those years of mud slinging, and the SNP is back on the Government benches, while Labour and the Conservatives are here in much reduced numbers. Mr Findlay made the point that it was arrogant for me to point that out, but it is a matter of fact. He bemoaned the fact that the SNP has dominated Scottish politics for 20 years. All I was pointing out— Anas Sarwar: That is your mindset. Jamie Hepburn: It is not a mindset but a matter of fact— Anas Sarwar: It was the mindset that Murrell had.”
“Even if we exercised our very best efforts to achieve impartiality, I do not think that it would be perceived as such, and it would not be possible to get away from the unavoidable structural reality of party politics. To return to my amendment, I made the point in my opening remarks that the people of Scotland collectively elected this Parliament to govern in their interests. As part of that, they chose a Scottish Government that seeks to work for them. Scotland has not chosen a Government that spends its time second-guessing the assessments that are made on matters by independent authorities. This debate seems to have been a bit of a return to some of the mud slinging that we saw from the Labour Party and the Conservatives during the previous parliamentary session, which carried on into the election.”
“If there were challenges in the Scottish Liberal Democrats, and doubtless, there have been such challenges—I see Mr Rennie nodding, so we will discuss those later, perhaps—I would not expect Parliament to be breenging into that territory. I would recognise that that would be a matter for the Scottish Liberal Democrats to determine. That is what the SNP has done with its processes. SNP members, who above all should be concerned about the issue, can be assured that improvements have been made. I turn to the notion of transparency, which I consider to be important. It is vital, but only if it is paired with impartiality. As I and others have stated, the obvious conflict of interest of parties investigating each other cannot be mitigated with any degree of procedural formality. That goes back to the point that I made at the outset.”
“Jamie Hepburn: I do not think that Mr Rennie is one of those SNP members, but maybe he wants to apply to join—we might let him come on board. I will give way one more time, to Mr Rennie. Willie Rennie: That is a very generous offer, but I will have to decline. The minister is talking about the SNP investigating itself. How does that improve the confidence of the public in the Government party in this country? Jamie Hepburn: There are two things there. First, the public can be confident that the crime that has been perpetrated has been fully investigated and prosecuted and there is now a plea. I do not think that any of us is suggesting that there is a lack of confidence in that process—I certainly hope not, as that would take us into a bad place. The other point, which is fundamental, is that the issue comes down to internal matters.”
“I see that Mr Rennie is nodding away, but I am afraid that that is fundamentally not the case. I will not go into the full detail, because that would take us into the territory of internal processes, but this gets to the heart of the issue. Where such issues happen, it is of course incumbent on the organisation that has been impacted to learn lessons, which is precisely what we have done. There has been a governance review in the Scottish National Party, and processes have been improved. That has been communicated by our national treasurer directly to every constituency and branch treasurer, and by our party leader to every member of the Scottish National Party. Willie Rennie: Will the minister give way?”
“Does he accept that questions are also coming from people who served his party, both in the NEC and in Parliaments? Those people are saying that blocks and obstructions were put in the way of them asking relevant questions, and that that goes to the heart of governance. There are questions about the statements made by people holding public office in this Parliament relating to those things. Does he accept that those questions are important and need to be examined and answered? Jamie Hepburn: That brings me to a point that I was going to make later, because it picks up on a point that Willie Rennie made—I see that Mr Rennie is now paying attention to me. He made the point that my party does not want to do anything in response to some of the issues that have arisen out of this situation.”
“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. Daniel Johnson: Will the minister give way? Jamie Hepburn: I will give way one more time. Daniel Johnson: The minister does not want to accept questions coming from other parts of the chamber.”
“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.”
“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.”
“Let us just remember where we are all starting from. [Interruption.] I am happy to give way if the member really wants me to. Amanda Lindsay: The only thing that I would say in response to that is that the SNP lecturing Reform on sleaze is like Lord Mandelson selling ethics lessons. No one is buying it. Jamie Hepburn: 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.”
“Sleaze is not unique to one side of the chamber, but only one party is pretending that it does not exist. The public are sick of it—sick of the cronyism, sick of the cover-ups and sick of politicians who treat public office as a protection racket for their own interests. That is why this Parliament must launch a full, independent parliamentary inquiry with the power to call witnesses and examine all relevant documents. No more self-serving internal reviews and no more hiding—the First Minister must choose: Scotland or the SNP; country or party. The time for secrecy is over. Let the inquiry begin. 17:33 Jamie Hepburn: I say to Amanda Lindsay that I might take more seriously the notion that my party operated like a syndicate if her party was not one that had been formed as a private limited company that is owned by one individual.”
“The member must be heard. Amanda Lindsay: Yet, when it comes to holding one of its own to account for embezzling party funds, the urgency mysteriously disappears. Meanwhile, Scottish Labour, which called this debate, might want to reflect on its party’s sleazy history. After all, its hero, Lord Mandelson, was twice forced to resign from Tony Blair’s Cabinet— first over an undeclared loan from a colleague and again over allegations of interfering in a passport application for wealthy donors. Just last year, Mandelson was sacked as His Majesty’s ambassador to the US. He later resigned from the Labour Party and the House of Lords amid fresh revelations about his close and continuing ties to the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, including allegations of passing sensitive Government information and receiving substantial payments.”
“No, no, minister. The member does not have to take interventions. Amanda Lindsay: Instead of full transparency, we have had silence, deflection and obstruction. The First Minister likes to lecture others about integrity, yet he still refuses to put country before party. If he truly believes in restoring public trust, he must stop hiding behind lawyers and finally come clean. This Government has spent years and millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money fighting women in the courts to defend the discredited ideology that men can be women. It has dragged For Women Scotland through the legal system, appealed rulings and wasted public resources, throwing women’s rights under the camper van, defending the indefensible. [Interruption.]”
“I will have to cut the microphone if the member does not conclude. Stephen Kerr: —by the conduct of these ministers. 17:22”
“The member must bring his remarks to a close. Stephen Kerr: —and they are connected with a lack of fundamental honesty in our politics, as exemplified—”
“The people join the dots—the scandal of what is happening in our maternity services, as highlighted on the front page of The Herald; the scandals at Historic Environment Scotland; and the scandal of how whistleblowers are treated in Scotland’s public services—”
“I need to conclude, so let me simply say this: imagine a Government in which ministers were recently found in contempt of court because of their secrecy. Imagine if that was a Labour Government or a Conservative Government. No, this is an SNP Government. Action was brought to the Court of Session, no less, by the Scottish Information Commissioner. Just think about that. The Government that was responsible for freedom of information legislation was found guilty by Scotland’s highest court because it failed in its obligations under that legislation. That goes directly to the issue of trust.”
“That is why there needs to be an inquiry on the issue. That is why Professor James Mitchell is correct. This is a serious political scandal— perhaps the biggest of the devolution era—which is undermining the confidence of the people of Scotland in politics. When they are not treating us all with disdain, they are laughing about the state of our politics, as exemplified by the conduct of the SNP in Government and how the SNP has governed its own party affairs. The people ask themselves how they can trust a party with more than £60 billion of public expenditure when it cannot account for £600,000 of its own members’ money and when it has just had someone convicted of serious fraud of £400,000.”
“I have just finished highlighting the very fact that, while members can stand up and say, “Well, we won the election; we can do what we like—and, by the way, we know all about what the priorities of the people of Scotland are”, there are 129 MSPs in the Parliament, and we represent all strands of view and opinion. Members on the SNP side of the chamber may have the privilege of forming the Government. Our job as members of this Parliament, regardless of party, is to hold the governing party, and ministers, to account. The problem in Scottish politics is not that the people of Scotland have suddenly become cynical about politics but that too many people have concluded that politics in Scotland has become less transparent, less accountable, less willing to answer legitimate questions and more secretive.”
“That is the first thing that we should recognise in this debate. The public can handle bad news. They can handle disappointment and difficult choices. What they cannot tolerate indefinitely is a suspicion that they are not being told the whole truth. That, in my view, is why trust in Scottish politics has fallen so far. Alex Kerr: Will the member take an intervention? Stephen Kerr: I am tempted to take an intervention from my fellow clansman—[Laughter.] Carry on. Alex Kerr: I thank Stephen Kerr. It is just to agree that the public are not fools, which is why they elected the SNP back to the Parliament as the Government to focus on the cost of living, on tackling the issues in the NHS and on performing for the people in driving up economic growth. Stephen Kerr: The member has just made my point for me.”
“Pauline McNeill was right: we have heard time and again from the SNP today, “We can do what we like because we’ve won elections and we are the masters.” Well, that is a poor tone, because with the privilege of service in the Parliament, and the greater privilege of serving as Scotland’s Government, there are obligations. There are honourable obligations, because “honourable” is a word. I know that we ruled out the word “honourable” earlier—I think it was Stephen Gethins who used that word, and he was corrected by the Presiding Officer. However, I say to the Minister for Parliamentary Business that to ascribe to any of us less-than-honourable motives as we conduct parliamentary business or sit on committees is beneath the ministerial office that he holds. The SNP needs to know that the public are not fools.”
“Kate Campbell: I thank the member for taking an intervention. He mentions self-awareness. In many of the conversations that we have had on doorsteps, people have said that their concerns about politicians are that they are very un-self- aware; that they come to the chamber and just shout at other people; and that they do not seem to be concerned about their constituents’ worries—rather, they are just concerned about heckling other members. Would he recognise any of that behaviour in himself? Stephen Kerr: I was not elected to serve in the reading room of a library. We were elected to a Parliament that should have robust debate. The member needs to realise that that is what Parliament is all about. I say again to SNP members that, on self- awareness, they rate nil points.”
“I do not think that I need to rescue the individual concerned—I am sure that he is more than capable of looking after himself—but I do ride to the rescue of the reputation of the Parliament, the nature of the debates that we have in this place and the standards to which we should subscribe. To be frank, beyond the issue of the memo, or shared speech, that was put among the SNP MSPs for this afternoon’s debate, I would say that they would rate nil points—nil points!—on self- awareness. On self-awareness, ladies and gentlemen—nil points. They talk about other parties. Where have they been living for the past 20 years? Kate Campbell: Will the member take an intervention? Stephen Kerr: I am happy to give way to Kate Campbell, who quite rightly pointed out what a disgrace it is that they are sitting where they sit. Carry on.”
“Mr Kerr—Mr Kerr! I remind Mr Kerr, who is an experienced parliamentarian, that he must speak through the chair. I also remind all members that they must use the full names of other members. The same thing has happened a number of times today, and I repeat that the full names of other members must be used. Stephen Kerr: I say to George Adam that he, of all people, should know that, of all the things that he might accuse me as being, I am not thin- skinned, but what we heard from Jack Middleton and others was an orchestrated, spad-organised attack on the character of a particular member of the Parliament. It is not about riding to the rescue of anybody.”
“The opening weeks of the session show to me the desire for us to get on with the day job of growing the economy, continuing to bring down NHS waiting lists, delivering on infrastructure projects and always putting first the people and interests of Scotland. 17:02”
“Labour tried to block a parliamentary inquiry into that public appointment—a public appointment that, clearly, railroaded vetting and security procedures. I have had one email on the suggested inquiry. Overnight, I have had 150 emails about the mandate of the independence parties. Maybe the Opposition should realise that the constitutional question is a matter of trust for voters and cannot be continually ignored by Westminster. As per my opening remarks, trust is hard won. We can regain it only by being successful and showing leadership in public office. After 19 years, the SNP has again been given the trust of the people to form the Government. That is a reflection of past achievements. We need to go forwards and deliver on our promises.”
“Exactly. You have time in hand. I was saying to the member that you do not have time to take interventions, but you have time to wind up because you have additional time. Alan Brown: Labour’s homelessness minister had to resign for trying to falsely evict tenants. Its housing minister and Deputy Prime Minister resigned for not paying the full amount of a property tax. A Cabinet Office minister resigned because of Labour Together. Starmer has appointed 122 life peers in just two years, which is the same as the number appointed by May and Johnson combined. It is as though cash for honours had never gone away. That is the party that thought that Mandelson was suitable to be UK ambassador to the US, despite his dodgy history and links to Epstein.”
“From chapping the doors, I can assure them that enough people knew all about camper vans, so the idea that the election was influenced to our benefit is beyond parody. Labour, whose vote share and number of seats has decreased in every election since 1999, cannot even look inwards to see its own failings. The fact is that, at Westminster, it promised change but delivered more austerity. The fact is that, on day 1, Lord Ali had bought access to number 10. Labour members ignore the fact that the party’s anti- corruption minister had to resign due to allegations of corruption.”
“It is the SNP members who are the victims of the actions of a man who abused the trust that was put in him. Admittedly, that situation demonstrated the pitfalls of allowing too much power to be given and faith to be put in one individual. However, clearly, that situation has been discovered, and there are now procedures in place for greater control of SNP finances. The fact that auditors signed off the accounts illustrates the scale of deceit. However, this was an individual within the SNP, not an elected official accountable to the public. The notion that plea and sentencing taking place after the election somehow altered the outcome of that election is truly pathetic. It is head-in-the-sand stuff about how bad the election was for Labour and the Tories.”
“Jenny Young: So that we are clear, is the member saying that Anas Sarwar has been wrong to come to this chamber and represent families whose children died in a hospital that, it is pretty well accepted, was opened before it was safe? Is he wrong to do that on behalf of his constituents in Glasgow? Alan Brown: The member did not listen to a word that I said. I said that, hopefully, a public inquiry will get proper answers for the grieving families. That is what I want to happen. What I am saying is that there is no point in demanding answers in the chamber before the public inquiry is concluded. The public inquiry is there to get the answers. Again, that shows the hypocrisy in this place around the embezzlement case, which is really frustrating.”
“Mr Brown, please sit down for a moment. This issue has arisen with a number of members. I ask every member to refer to other members by their full name, please. Alan Brown: The reality is that there has been a police investigation into the embezzlement of funds from the SNP. A parliamentary inquiry is not going to add any more to that and would be a waste of money. It would not even satisfy the Opposition. At the moment, we have an ongoing independent public inquiry into issues around hospitals, but, instead of letting that take its course and hopefully get proper answers for the grieving families, Anas Sarwar continues to demand answers in the chamber instead of waiting for the conclusion of that public inquiry. It is always the politics first.”
“Mr Brown— Alan Brown: —but, obviously, people should not be denigrated. I agree that there should be no smearing à la what I was talking about in relation to Labour Together and the fact that it attempted to shut down journalists by paying private investigators. I agree with that premise.”
“The member must be heard. There must not be interruptions. Marie McNair: —and the arrogant denial in the motion. [Interruption.] I am sorry—I am being heckled by Mr Sarwar. I condemn Peter Murrell for what he did. It is right that he is in prison. The police investigation did its job and a criminal has been convicted. More generally, I am up for meaningful consideration of how we try to resolve and restore trust in politics. However, anyone who is being honest knows that that is not what the Labour motion is about. 16:48”
“In particular, they show the spectacular lack of awareness—[Interruption.]”
“As the party’s Scottish leader, will Mr Sarwar instruct his MPs to hand the money back, and will he back the calls for an independent investigation? Will he open the books to reveal how much cash Scottish Labour took from Labour Together? On that point, I am sympathetic to the Greens’ amendment. As one of my constituents said, “I don’t trust a single word Sarwar and the Labour Party say.” It will be no surprise when I reveal that my constituent is one of the women against state pension inequality—the WASPI women—who were promised compensation, then betrayed. We do not forget, either, that Labour campaign leaflet with the fabricated quotation that Mr Sarwar could not explain and which he had to apologise for. All those things are likely to have caused the lack of trust that the electorate showed in Labour.”
“Scottish Labour appeared to maintain its murky relationship with Mandelson more widely than that—Douglas Alexander apparently credited him for getting Douglas Alexander back into Parliament and then had undeclared meetings at his behest. There are suggestions that Mandelson was allowed to hand pick Scottish Labour Westminster election candidates. Or is the lack of trust due to the shady influence of Labour Together on the Scottish Labour Party, with Scottish candidates taking thousands of pounds in cash from it? Only one Scottish Labour MP signed the early day motion that called for an independent inquiry into Labour Together and, as far as I am aware, not one Labour MP has handed any money back.”
“The member making the speech must be given the floor. Marie McNair: Nothing in the debate today acknowledges or explains why there is a lack of trust in the integrity of Mr Sarwar and the Labour Party. As has already been said, is he one of the least trusted leaders in Scotland because of cosying up to Peter Mandelson—who was the best friend of Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted paedophile—at a time when everyone knew that Peter Mandelson had maintained contact with Epstein? We will not forget the big smiles in the picture of Sarwar and Mandelson and the quotation that “It was great to catch up with my old friend”.”
“Can the member wind up, please? Kate Campbell: I will do. In its briefing, openDemocracy sets out some helpful steps that we can take to restore trust. It asks us to include honesty, explain the reasons behind decisions, be respectful and put the public interest first. Democracy matters. Trust matters. I hope that we can spend the next five years restoring that trust by getting policies right. However, sadly, I do not think that this debate will contribute to that. 16:36”
“When we disagree with one another, we should challenge one another, but we should do so on the substance of a debate, on a point of principle or on a policy that we think the other person is getting wrong. This use of negative language and vague terms to insinuate some sort of blame or wrongdoing is, frankly, just grim, and it is not restoring anything.”
“Could the member be heard, please? There must be no interruptions. Kate Campbell: Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. We should be focusing on how we make Scotland work for everyone. Opposition MSPs and SNP back benchers actually have the same job. We all need to roll up our sleeves, get stuck in and work across parties. Yes, we should all challenge the Scottish Government, but we should do so robustly and constructively to improve legislation, to ensure that ministers have considered the impact of their plans and to flag any outcomes that we might be worried about by making representations on behalf of the communities that we represent. Government ministers must listen to our concerns, reflect on them and take them in good faith.”
“The member is winding up. Kate Campbell: That is the main cause of the loss of trust in politics, which we should all care about, because a loss of trust causes a loss of participation, and, if the people do not participate, democracy will fail. There might be those— particularly on the populist right—who want that outcome. However, I cannot believe that there are not decent members on the Labour benches who are not cringing inside at Anas Sarwar’s and Jackie Baillie’s approach. It is unfathomable that, to date, there has been no leadership challenge in their party, because this is so embarrassing for Labour. It lost the election badly because, in place of having policies, Labour just has a visceral hatred of the SNP. That approach was roundly rejected at the ballot box. We should be focusing on how we make Scotland work for everyone.”
“Most of us have spent the past year or so speaking to voters, and what have they told us? They are worried about the cost of living crisis and about the impact of global events on their lives. They absolutely hate to see politicians who seem more interested in slinging mud than making the lives of ordinary people better, and they want politicians who take those concerns seriously. The SNP won the election, which we had no business winning after 19 years in government, and we won it by a landslide because we presented plans to make people’s lives better. We showed people that we care about the same things as they do. What happened to Labour and the Tories in that election? They were absolutely decimated.”
“There should be no interruptions while the member has the floor. Kate Campbell: I can honestly say that the behaviour in this chamber is astonishing. I came from a council, and I thought that it was rowdy in council chambers. In this chamber, we are making decisions about people’s lives and I find this behaviour embarrassing. Stephen Kerr: It is called debating! Kate Campbell: It is not debating. Debating means allowing people to speak. I will make progress. Telling people that you will create growth and prosperity but having no plan to do so, and failing to use any of the levers at your disposal to improve our economy or reduce the cost of living and refusing to devolve those powers to a Scottish Government that stands ready and willing to use them—that is what erodes public trust.”
“[Interruption.] My intervention on Kate Campbell is simply this: is she claiming that the Labour Party has a monopoly on broken election promises? Has she examined the SNP’s record in relation to election promises? Has she considered that broken trust might have a lot to do with the fact that the party that Kate Campbell represents has governed in Scotland for the past 19 years? Kate Campbell: The SNP’s record has been very clearly demonstrated by the fact that we won 58 seats in the recent election. The nearest party—[Interruption.] Deputy Presiding Officer, they do not stop talking. Stephen Kerr: This is a Parliament.”