—to give us the just transition now and in the decades to come.

No, thank you.

That company would be able to de-risk private investment in new technologies such as tidal and offshore floating wind while accelerating the deployment of existing technologies. It would be critical to ensuring that Scotland and the UK power ahead in the global race for renewables and the green economy. We have to accelerate the pace of change to create new jobs and investment opportunities. Through a national wealth fund, we would provide funding to invest in the key sectors and the infrastructure that we urgently need for the green economy, such as ports, industrial hubs and green hydrogen. Scottish businesses would have a partner in a possible future UK Labour Government.

We need change. We would work to reduce energy bills, create good jobs, deliver energy security and provide climate leadership. Those are Scottish Labour’s priorities.

I hope that the cabinet secretary will live up to the words in her amendment and work with—not against—a future Labour Government, because no community must be left behind. It is critical that, when we can work together in co-operative partnership with businesses, we do so and that we deliver the jobs that are urgently needed now.

—that will support investment by the public and the private sector.

The company will bring together the UK Government, the Scottish Government and our local authorities. We need to work together, because the climate emergency and the challenge of fuel poverty, which the Tory cost of living crisis has exacerbated, are real issues.

We need action and investment in green jobs now, and we need to work with the oil and gas and the renewables sectors to deliver the opportunities—

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that the Scottish justice system is “close to collapse” and that solicitors are taking industrial action. (S6O-03529)

The member quite rightly mentioned Edinburgh and our problem with potholes, but is he aware that, in the recent budget decisions, the SNP proposal to cut the budget by around £5 million was defeated by the rest of the council? At least the situation will not get even worse.

Given the importance of reducing waste in our communities and—as the cabinet secretary said—tackling our climate emergency, do we need the Scottish Government to redouble its efforts to support our councils as they co-design to deliver on the new targets that will come in next year? Welsh local authorities have received £1 million over the past decade, which is why they are now world leading in delivering on reducing waste in their communities.

I ask the cabinet secretary for clarity on what she meant by introducing “expedited legislation”, as she said in her statement to the chamber, to address the matters that the Climate Change Committee had raised and to ensure that our legislative framework better reflects the reality of long-term climate policy. Has she given up on her plan to introduce that legislation in an expedited manner? We are waiting for it now. Is it not the case that the longer the Scottish Government delays such legislation, the longer Scotland will go without a climate change plan and the longer we will have to wait for urgent action to tackle the climate emergency?

To ask the Scottish Government when it will introduce legislation on climate targets, as announced by the net zero secretary in her ministerial statement on 18 April. (S6O-03509)

Like many MSPs, I have been reflecting on the 25 years of the Scottish Parliament. I had the privilege of being elected for the first time in 1999, as did the First Minister. It is a bit disappointing, given the statements that he has made over the past few days, that he is not in the chamber to hear the debate.

Like Paul O’Kane, I thought back to Donald Dewar’s words in his opening speech in the Parliament, when he said:

“We are fallible. We will make mistakes. But we will never lose sight of what brought us here: the striving to do right by the people of Scotland”.

I feel that, in the tone of today’s debate, we have lost sight of what brought us here. It is okay to be fallible and to make mistakes, but we are not just talking about a simple mistake: we are holding to account a member of the Parliament who attempted to use taxpayers’ money for personal gain, then misled others about it, thereby breaking the code of conduct that we are all bound by.

On reflection, we have to ensure that parliamentary standards are upheld and that those who ignore them are held to account. It is absolutely vital that the Parliament demonstrates that we are all still

“striving to do right by the people of Scotland.”

In her opening speech, Jackie Baillie was measured in highlighting the importance of the need for us to take the right decision. I feel that, in mishandling the episode, the Scottish National Party and the First Minister have potentially jeopardised the integrity of the Parliament at a time when we know that trust in politicians is plummeting.

People are getting tired of a Government that puts self-interest before the national interest, and they are tired of the accusations of bullying, the Covid rule breaking and the WhatsApp deleting. This week’s events add to that narrative. By his refusal to acknowledge the findings of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, the First Minister has undermined the vital structures that make this Parliament work. Accountability is an essential component of a democracy, and the standards committee is one of the most important ways of ensuring that all of us in this chamber are accountable. We also have the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland, which we set up in 2002.

There are ways in which people can complain about us, and we all have to go through the process. If we disregard the standards committee when it does not suit us or it goes against our party, we potentially bring the work of our Parliament into disrepute. I question SNP members having, in the previous debate, amended the motion then not voting for the amended motion.

To be clear, the committee was unanimous in its view that Michael Matheson should face sanctions, and it agreed on the need for a financial sanction for 54 days. As Alasdair Allan said, there was not agreement on what the period for which he should not be allowed to come back to Parliament should be. However, that was a discussion in the standards committee, and there is an extent to which we must respect the work of that committee.

I cannot be the only MSP who is regularly told on the doorstep that politicians are only in it for themselves. That is an issue that we all have to address. One of my constituents observed that, if they had done what Michael Matheson did, they would have automatically lost their job. I would probably not be doing my job if I did not comment on the fact that it is a bit of an irony that this debate, which rightly criticises Michael Matheson’s actions, is a Tory debate, given the previous actions of the Tories’ colleague and former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, who broke the ministerial code on numerous occasions. However, this is politics, and we are all going to disagree with one another.

Fundamentally, since our Parliament was established, we have had to make sure that our constituents have been able to have confidence in it. That does not mean that people will not make mistakes, but we must be accountable. Our constituents need to know that we reflect on the changes that have been made.

A couple of years ago, we published our proposals in the Scottish Labour document, “A Stronger Scotland”, in which we suggested that we should have a right of recall and other measures to improve the operation of our Parliament. A right of recall was introduced in the UK Parliament in 2015. When the Scottish Parliament was first established, that process was an example of best practice. There is a need for us to look at the experiences of our work over the 25 years since then, and to involve everyone in that process.

Under the proposals that Jackie Baillie put forward in her speech and in her amendment, voters would, in certain circumstances in which there had been misconduct, have the opportunity to remove their MSP. That is an obvious step to strengthen our democracy and restore the electorate’s trust. They need to know that we are here to serve them and that we are accountable.

After last year’s result in Rutherglen and Hamilton West, I totally get why the SNP might not be in a hurry to introduce a right of recall, but that would be the most democratic way of returning to the ideals that were outlined by Donald Dewar—that parliamentarians are here to serve the people of Scotland, and that we should always strive to do what is right. It is not too late for Michael Matheson to do what is right.

We need change, and we need it now. It cannot come soon enough.