Clare Adamson
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“That concludes the debate. I wish members, their staff and everyone else who works on the parliamentary campus a wonderful recess. Meeting closed at 18:10. This is a draft Official Report and is subject to correction between publication and archiving, which will take place no later than 35 working days after the date of the meeting.”
“I am reminded again of my discussion with the family of the man on licence in the community. They reported that there is a broken community payback system and that hours have been wasted by a poorly managed scheme.”
“Home detention as part of a wider set of tools to manage a prison population does work, yet the number of prisoners on home detention curfew is lower now than it was 10 years ago. Between 2016 and 2018, an average of 288 prisoners were on home detention at any one time; during the same period ending in 2025, the average number was 87.”
“I call on the Scottish Government to do what Pauline McNeill described clearly and take the action that is needed to clear the backlog in the justice system. We need to reduce the number of people who are held on remand.”
“He committed an act of violence and punishment is appropriate, but we agree with the Scottish Government that to assume prison is a panacea for all crime is to simplify the most complex of issues. As my colleague from across the chamber emphasised today, the aim of our justice system is twofold: to punish and to rehabilitate.”
“We now move to closing speeches. I call Yi-pee—sorry, Yi-pei—Chou Turvey to speak for up to four minutes. 15:50 Yi-pei Chou Turvey: Do not worry, Deputy Presiding Officer—Yi and pei are both pronounced like EE, the phone company, if that makes it easier to remember.”
The complete record
Every one of 640 lines we hold for Clare Adamson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 13.
“We also need to consider that the costs for bus companies have gone up. The price of buying new buses is considerable, the cost of fuel has gone up and the cost of providing bus services in some parts of the country is higher than in others. We need to consider everything in the round to make sure that we have a bus service that is available for everybody in every part of our communities. 16:35 Craig Hoy: I will take up the point that Mr Rennie just made. In the round, the policy looks good but, in four years’ time, once we have had the pilot throughout the SPT area, including in the densely populated city of Glasgow, we might suddenly find that the costs are simply not affordable, or we might end up borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. That could happen in one of two ways.”
“Every member of this Parliament has a responsibility to think— Bob Doris: Will the member take an intervention? Willie Rennie: A brief one, yes. Bob Doris: It is a brief intervention, Mr Rennie. I will be convening the Public Service Reform Committee in this Parliament. I note that we are spending £528 million on bus services this year alone. Do you think that we can achieve better value for money from that and drive efficiencies? Willie Rennie: That is what I am asking us to consider. Rather than just thinking about the headline policy, we need to think about value for money and the impact that we get from the policy. I would sometimes like us to take a step back and look at everything in the round, rather than take a siloed approach to policy. We need to consider the overall cost and how we can best use the public finances.”
“We will, I hope, have the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Tourism and Transport before the Transport Committee later this year, when we will be considering bus issues, which might be through his new bus bill, which will include provisions on the bus fare cap. That includes mysterious elements that we do not quite know about yet—he is still not telling us about them. I am looking forward to those evidence sessions when he will reveal all about what will be in the bus bill. I want to consider the cost of all this, because at no point in the debate have we talked about the £5 billion financial hole that will exist in our public finances towards the end of the decade. Sometimes, when we are talking about nationalisation and expanding the bus fare cap, we did not really think about the cost of all those things.”
“When looking at the use of public funds, we must consider how best to ensure that those routes and those people have the freedom that Dawn Black mentioned. As I alluded to in my opening remarks, I sometimes worry that, in the race towards the bus fare cap, we are not giving sufficient consideration to the pot of money that we have available to ensure a rounded service across all parts of the country. There is no point in having cheap fares if we do not have a bus service. The demand-responsive transport that Lloyd Melville talked about is a good way of ensuring that we plug particular gaps, often for elderly people who do not want to go on a general bus service and who want to know that the bus will come to their area when they need it. We should look at expanding that service.”
“We should be honest about it. This is a good policy, but that aspect is part of what is happening and we must try to mitigate it. I hope that the cabinet secretary will address that in his summing up, because I thought that Craig Hoy made a fair point. I especially welcomed three contributions. One was from Lloyd Melville, who was appointed deputy convener of the Transport Committee this morning; another was from Dawn Black; and the final one was from Pauline Stafford. They all spoke about how certain communities and groups are cut off from society due to a lack of appropriate bus services. That is not just the case in very rural parts of the country—sometimes that is the case in isolated communities in the central belt.”
“We move to closing speeches. 16:30 Willie Rennie: I was very grateful for Alan Brown’s recitation of his bus route. I thought that he was going to go all the way and regale us with the cost of every leg of his trip to Boston. I am grateful that he did not, because those of us who enjoyed the match did not really need to hear about the bus journey. Craig Hoy, in the last part of his speech, hit on a point that I had hoped that the cabinet secretary would include in his remarks. We must be honest about behaviour on some buses, as it is an issue. We know that there have been violent attacks, but there are also issues about groups of young people congregating around bus stations. There are certain hot spots, particularly in Fife— around Kirkcaldy and Glenrothes—but I hear that that is also true of Kilmarnock and other places across Scotland.”
“We are very tight for time. I hope to get through all the questions, so it would be helpful if we could have shorter questions and answers. University Hospital Monklands 8.”
“The next portfolio is health and care. I remind members who wish to ask a supplementary question to press their request-to-speak buttons during the relevant question. Thrombectomy Service 1.”
“The first item of business this afternoon is portfolio question time, and the first portfolio is justice. If a member wishes to request a supplementary question, they should press their request-to-speak button during the relevant question. Rural Crime 1.”
“Earlier, I omitted to put the question on the motion to extend the debate, so I will put it now. Do members agree to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes? Motion agreed to, That, under rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes. 18:27”
“You must conclude. Patricia Gibson: Today, we pay tribute to Jo Cox, who is often quoted as saying that there is more that unites us than divides us. Truly, if we could remember that and live with that in mind, whatever our roles in life are, our more respectful politics will have a strong basis on which to survive and thrive.”
“Before moving to our next speaker, who will be Patricia Gibson, I am minded to accept a motion without notice, under rule 8.14.3, to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes. I invite Jenny Young to move the motion. Motion moved, That, under rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Jenny Young] 18:20”
“I inform the chamber that, understandably, very many members wish to speak in tonight’s debate. I intend to let everyone in, given the number of friends and colleagues of Jo who are in the chamber this evening. 17:56”
“Motion debated, That the Parliament acknowledges the 10th anniversary of the death of Jo Cox, who was murdered on 16 June 2016; notes that, until her death, Jo served as the Member of Parliament for Batley and Spen from May 2015; further notes that she was known as a passionate campaigner, activist and humanitarian; understands that her murder prompted a national conversation about the safety and security of elected representatives and the need for greater civility in politics; acknowledges that Jo has left a lasting legacy, including the Jo Cox Foundation, a charity that calls for more respect in politics, and The Great Get Together, an annual nationwide celebration centred on Jo’s message that “we have more in common than that which divides us”; celebrates the work of the Jo Cox Foundation, including the Jo Cox Women in Leadership Programme, which aims to support women in developing their skills and participating fully in public life; acknowledges that, in the decade since Jo’s murder, further acts of violence against elected representatives have occurred, including the murder of Sir David Amess in 2021, and notes the view that, as a new session of the Scottish Parliament begins, all MSPs should commit to fostering a more respectful political culture and remember that they have more in common than that which divides them.”
“I ask members leaving the chamber to do so quietly, please. The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S7M-00180, in the name of Jenny Young, on the 10th anniversary of the death of Jo Cox. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put. I ask members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now.”
“The next item of business is a debate on motion S7M-00356, in the name of Shirley- Anne Somerville, on strengthening Scotland’s partnership with the third sector. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now. 15:36”
“The People’s Palace and its winter gardens are a treasure and a national asset, as well as an asset for the east end of Glasgow. We have to work constructively and collaboratively to save them, and that is what the Scottish Government will do in partnership.”
“Can we have a question? Clare Haughey: Will the minister assure my constituents and the people of Glasgow that the People’s Palace will reopen, and can he give a timescale for that work to be completed? Tom Arthur: I assure Clare Haughey and her constituents of the Scottish Government’s commitment on that. I am not in a position to give a definitive timescale for the reopening, but, naturally, I want that to happen as quickly as is practicably possible. Clare Haughey highlights to the chamber another important point, which is the value of learning lessons from history, particularly of the post-war era, when many treasures of our architectural heritage—not just in Glasgow, but more widely across Scotland—were lost to post- war planning. That is a mistake that we must never repeat.”
“Can we have a question, please? Duncan Massey: Yes. Will the minister confirm that Our Union Street will get the full £600,000, or does he see that as a contingent number? If so, on what contingency is it based? Tom Arthur: For the avoidance of doubt, the total investment is up to £1 million. The amount will be determined through engagement with Our Union Street to ensure that effective project management systems are in place to maximise the impact of the funding. We have committed to delivering up to £1 million—that is on the table for the Our Union Street campaign.”
“We will now have questions. I intend to allow about 20 minutes for questions, after which we must move on to the next item of business.”
“Our next item of business is a statement by Tom Arthur on Scottish Government investment in Our Union Street and the People’s Palace. 15:03”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The lights are off at the back of the chamber. I do not know whether there is an electrical fault. The Presiding Officer: We will suspend briefly until we resolve the matter. 14:01 Meeting suspended. 14:03 On resuming— The Presiding Officer: I have a slight touch of déjà vu. The first item of business is time for reflection. Our time for reflection leader today is the Rev Amanda Reid, spiritual care and bereavement lead at Children’s Hospices Across Scotland.”
“We move to closing speeches. We are running behind, so if those who are not making a first speech could stick strictly to their times, that would be very helpful. 16:35”
“You must wind up now. Joe Long: As with the consideration of the impact on future generations and the commitment to prevention, I hope that, when we talk about public sector reform, we can build in serious consideration of the impact on the third sector.”
“We have a number of first speeches in this session, so I remind people that the convention is not to intervene on a first speech. I call Dawn Black to make their first speech. 16:04”
“I move amendment S7M-00309.5, to leave out from “welcomes” to end and insert: “acknowledges that the Scottish National Party administration has failed to deliver on public service reform during its 19 years in power; agrees that the delivery of excellent and sustainable public services should be the goal of public service reform, rather than the preservation of existing corporate structures; notes that, while a long overdue commitment to deliver public service reform is welcome, the Scottish Government’s finances will remain unsustainable until Social Security Scotland’s ever-rising benefits bill is controlled, and calls on the Scottish Government to clearly set out how it plans to close the near £5 billion forecast black-hole in Scotland’s finances.” 15:54”
“You must wind up, Mr Fraser. Murdo Fraser: We want to see that black hole in the public finances closed. It needs to close. We need to hear the meat of the Government’s argument on what public service reform means. That is the point that is made in our amendment today, and I am very pleased to move it.”
“Cabinet secretary, I am afraid that Mr Fraser is in his last minute or so. Murdo Fraser: Perhaps the cabinet secretary could respond to that point in his winding-up speech. I will cover a couple of other points quickly. Fourthly, we need to focus on front-line services. Do we really need an army of diversity, equality and inclusion managers in every organisation? Fifthly, we need to end the practice of funding supposed arm’s-length charities through Government. These so-called charities depend almost entirely on Government funding for support and they use that money to lobby the Government for policy change. I am thinking of the Equality Network as a very good example. If people want to lobby the Government, they should do it with their own money, not at taxpayers’ expense. Presiding Officer, we want to see—”
“Thank you, cabinet secretary. That concludes the debate, and—this is my first time saying this—I close this meeting. Meeting closed at 18:45. Correction Duncan Dunlop has identified an error in his contribution and provided the following correction.”
“Motion debated, That the Parliament welcomes the work undertaken by Creative Scotland and Screen Scotland to support the film and screen industry and create opportunities for Scotland’s cultural and arts sector; recognises what it sees as the potential economic and cultural opportunities that a new studio facility and dedicated screen skills academy could bring to Scotland, including Stirling; notes that Scotland’s screen sector reportedly contributed £718 million to the Scottish economy in 2023 and supported 12,260 full-time equivalent jobs; welcomes the fact that the sector is on course to contribute £1 billion annually to the Scottish economy by the end of 2030-31, and commends Screen Scotland, local authority screen offices and all others who have contributed to the continued successful growth of the sector in Scotland. 18:03”
“The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S7M-00188, in the name of Alyn Smith, on growing Scotland’s screen sector. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I call Alyn Smith to open the debate.”
“Mr Rennie, you need to conclude. Willie Rennie: I am going to conclude. The approach is to spread the blame around. Let us just reflect for a moment. This is what the public expect—if they believe that the Parliament will sweep the matter under the carpet, their faith in Scottish politics will diminish further. For goodness’ sake, let us listen to what people are saying.”
“I move amendment S7M-00294.2, to leave out from “agrees” to end and insert: “believes there is a need to restore public trust in politics following multiple recent financial scandals, including those uncovered by Operation Branchform; further believes that an independent review into party political finances would go some way towards restoring this trust; believes that, to avoid this becoming a nakedly partisan process, it should be independently led rather than conducted by parliamentary committee, and that its remit must apply to the funding of all political parties; recognises wider concerns about the role of money in politics, including the scale of donations by extremely wealthy individuals, and the influence of organisations that refuse to disclose their funding sources, and calls for the devolution of power over the regulation of political parties and their funding to allow for the implementation of any recommendations of the independent review that would require legislative change.” 15:54”
“The Greens do not want to waste public money on a hyperpartisan parliamentary inquiry with no clear objective other than bashing the Scottish Government. I urge members to support instead the Green proposal. We can produce something positive from the mess. In and of itself, the proposal will not restore trust in politics, but it takes an important step towards doing so. This afternoon, we can do something for the public, not just advance our party interests. I urge members to support the Green proposal.”
“In closing, I go back to what James Mitchell proposed. I am not claiming that he endorses the Green proposals but, clearly, what we have proposed is closer to his calls than anything else that has been offered today. He said: “we need to make sure that what is done results in improved outcomes, enhances transparency and improves internal party governance … not an opportunity for grandstanding, obfuscation and hyper-partisanship.” The Greens do not want a review for its own sake. The 2025 social attitudes survey showed that less than half the Scottish public trust the Scottish Government, and that far fewer trust the UK Government. That lack of trust is easy to exploit. We see that in the other major story in Scotland this week. That is more relevant to us all than the situation inside the SNP.”
“The Rycroft review made that clear. The previous UK Conservative Government would not act on it—because, I suggest, of the Russian money that I referenced. To its credit, the current UK Labour Government is entertaining proposals to deal with the issue. [Interruption.] Mr Sarwar is missing the limited praise that I am giving the UK Government, because of his conversation with other members. The UK Labour Government seems to be willing to get a grip on some of the issues, and I give it credit for that. Transparency in our politics is important. I have mentioned the role of the Electoral Commission. Members across the Parliament will appreciate why the Greens in particular are frustrated with the Electoral Commission over its failure to act on issues that are undermining the legitimacy of our politics.”
“We would like such a review to look into issues such as the influence that is wielded by wealthy donors and dark-money organisations— those who do not declare their own funding before giving to political parties and working with them. According to a poll that was published, I believe, only this morning or yesterday, 83 per cent of the public across the UK believe that wealthy individuals wield influence over political parties through the money that they direct towards them. We will restore trust in politics by addressing such issues, which the public believes are seriously undermining our democracy. There are serious risks to our democracy, whether in Scotland or UK wide. Foreign interference is a serious risk, and donations to political parties are one way in which foreign interference has wormed its way into our system.”
“The review that we have proposed would apply to all political parties, not just one, to remove the element of conflict of interest. Mr Sarwar, rightly, puts the challenge to the SNP, but I put it to him and to all parties in this place that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. The Greens have nothing to hide or fear about an independent review of political party financial arrangements; neither has the Labour Party, I hope. We believe that an independent review that looks at all political parties and the governing arrangements, rules and regulations that apply to all of us is the appropriate way forward.”
“If one old firm team was accused of wrongdoing, we would not appoint the other one—or any club in Scotland—to an inquiry into that. We would appoint the governing institutions. In the case of political parties, the governing institutions include the Electoral Commission. There are serious questions about whether the Electoral Commission has the powers that it needs in order to act. There are also serious questions about whether it has the culture that it needs to oversee political parties in this place. The Green proposal focuses on restoring public trust in this institution. Most importantly, the Greens have proposed an independent review, along the lines of that proposed in recent weeks by Professor James Mitchell, Transparency International and others.”
“Of course they do not. On Mr Sarwar’s specific criticism that an element of the Green amendment plays constitutional politics, I believe that the regulation of political parties and the laws that govern them should be the day job of this Parliament. Political parties have to register separately to run in Scotland. It is only logical that this Parliament, which has responsibility for elections and the franchise, should also have responsibility for that area of electoral law. However, there is an obvious conflict of interest in having an inquiry along the lines of what the Labour Party has put forward, and I suggest that it is very much a case of throwing stones from inside glass houses. I was asked about that in the media this morning, and I used examples from other areas of public life.”
“I am not one who is going to spend the next five years giving the Reform Party any credit whatsoever, but it is notable that the two parties that have used First Minister’s question time to ask about and challenge the Government on matters of public policy are the Greens and Reform—the two parties that gained seats at the election. As for the parties that have played silly games at First Minister’s question time for the past few weeks—Labour and the Conservatives—well, we all know what result the public gave them last month. Anas Sarwar and, indeed, a further number of our unionist colleagues like to regularly challenge the Scottish Government and all of us who believe in the cause of independence to focus on the day job and get on with that. Do they really think that the public believe that this topic is the day job of this Parliament?”
“We could have spent this afternoon talking about many different issues. The Labour Party’s proposal is the result of one thing: it is the response of sore losers who cannot deal with the fact that, for 20 years, they have failed to put a positive vision about this country to the people and have got the response that they deserved over and over again. We could have spent this afternoon talking about the NHS, an issue that I know is close to the heart of Anas Sarwar. We could have spent it talking about the problems in our social care system or—bearing in mind the greenhouse gas emissions statement yesterday—about the Government’s failure to get a grip on the climate emergency, but we are not doing any of that. We can reflect on the few weeks that we have been in this place since the election.”
“Members, let us hear the speech. Ross Greer: Of course, the current Prime Minister was almost immediately mired in scandal because of the clothes and gifts that he received from Lord Alli. Two things can be true here. The SNP was the victim of a crime, but its internal governance processes and culture also failed. The crime was a matter for the police and the prosecution service, which have done their job; the SNP’s internal governance arrangements are for it. If I was a member of the SNP, I would demand a root-and- branch review. Daniel Johnson: Will the member give way? Ross Greer: Not quite yet, Mr Johnson. However, I am not a member of the SNP, and it is no more my job to tell the SNP how to run that party than it would be for any member in this place to tell me how to run the Scottish Green Party.”
“Yes. The Presiding Officer has agreed that that should be the case for all debates if you take an intervention. Michael Marra: I appreciate the minister giving way. Would he not recognise that there is a question of public money paid in Short money to the SNP? There are questions of public policy that must be addressed, where it is not just the SNP that is the victim, as the minister asserts. Jamie Hepburn: Any of those questions will be dealt with by the Electoral Commission. That issue has already been raised in Parliament. The question was asked of the First Minister, and he responded clearly. This is a party political matter.”
“I call on all those who care about standards in public life, who care about learning lessons from the biggest scandal in Scottish politics and who care about repairing the trust that is being so terribly damaged by this whole affair to back the motion. How SNP members vote on the motion will show whether the culture that enabled Peter Murrell to commit his crimes has changed or whether it persists to this day. If SNP members have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear, so they should back the motion in my name. I move, That the Parliament agrees to conduct an inquiry into the implications and lessons to be learned following the conclusion of Operation Branchform and the embezzlement conviction of Peter Murrell. 15:28”
“However, the problem with the Green amendment is that it makes two very deliberate mistakes. First, it acts as cover for an SNP in trouble—the Greens believe that they are there to protect the SNP. Secondly, it raises a constitutional issue, because it talks about moving powers from Parliament to Parliament. However, I think that there are legitimate issues that Ross Greer and Patrick Harvie would want to investigate. The measure of a functioning democracy is that even the governing party can be held to account. That is what is at the heart of this matter. The inquiry would be about strengthening our democracy, restoring public trust in our politics, holding those in power and our institutions to account and learning lessons.”
“You can, Mr Sarwar. Patrick Harvie: I wonder whether Anas Sarwar applies the same principle—if people have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear—to our argument that, if there is to be an independent process, it needs to apply to all political parties, so that it can look into, for example, his old friend Peter Mandelson’s murky financial ties to the super-rich and criminals around the world and the way in which many United Kingdom Labour ministers expressed their thanks to him for his help in their ascension to ministerial office. Anas Sarwar: I have sympathy for the argument that Patrick Harvie has made, and I have sympathy with the Green amendment. There should be greater transparency on party financing and donations, including on the £5 million gift that was given to Nigel Farage.”
“Why have there been lies and misinformation? What are the implications and the lessons? There are undoubtedly questions for Nicola Sturgeon and John Swinney, but there are also questions for those who held other positions of responsibility and have been rewarded for their loyalty with ministerial office. Let me give just two examples. Kirsten Oswald, who has been accused of blocking scrutiny of SNP finances and clamping down on whistleblowers, is now a minister; and Shirley-Anne Somerville, a former deputy chief executive to Peter Murrell, is now a cabinet secretary. Why are they being shielded from scrutiny? Again, I say that, if there is nothing to hide, there is nothing to fear, so the SNP should back an inquiry.”
“We all know what happened: there was bullying and intimidation; a treasurer was forced to resign for trying to do the right thing; and three members of the SNP’s finance and audit committee quit due to obstruction. Those are all valid questions that must be answered. There are also questions for those who administer public money: HMRC and those who are responsible for Short money. Last week, John Swinney confirmed to the Parliament that VAT was illegally reclaimed from HMRC using the false receipts. What was the extent of the VAT fraud? How was that money used? Was illegal money spent on election campaigns? Was Short money claimed and used in an illegal way? What about the ring-fenced £600,000 of donations from SNP members for the supposed purpose of a referendum campaign? We now know that that money was spent by the SNP on other things.”
“As we have seen from repeated leaks and briefings to the media, issues and disputes arose between the force and the Crown Office. What were those issues and why? There are questions for the Electoral Commission about its powers, roles, responsibilities and sanctioning powers. There are questions for the Scottish Legal Aid Board. Why was a man who earned a very large salary, owned his own home, owned property in Portugal, clearly has personal resources and now claims that he can immediately pay back the full amount that he embezzled, able to receive legal aid paid for by taxpayers when so many others in this country are denied it? Those are questions about a culture of secrecy and cover-up that too often spills over into how senior people in Government—and the Government itself—operate.”