Chamber and committees

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.

Is it not absolutely extraordinary that some people respond to a fossil fuel crisis that is sending prices spiralling through the roof by demanding that we double down and make ourselves even more dependent on fossil fuels and even more exposed to the next energy crisis that fossil fuels cause?

I think that Anas Sarwar would be horrified if a former or a current leader of a political party told its members how they should vote on a committee decision. [Interruption.] That is for committees to decide, and I am not going to instruct any—[Interruption.] Look at him laughing. Look at Mr Sarwar laughing at that suggestion that we should respect the independence of our committees. If Mr Sarwar will stop heckling, I will continue.

The Greens agree that the wider question of trust is legitimate. Indeed, it is more than legitimate; it is urgent, and it requires a political response. The Greens say that, beyond the criminal justice response to Murrell’s crimes, which is the job of the courts, a further response is needed. However, that response must avoid the naked partisanship that has characterised too much of this debate.

If we are serious about it, a pantomime performance is not what is needed. If we want to restore trust across our political spectrum, we all need to face scrutiny and not only demand it from others. My party is willing to face it and others should, too.

The damage to public trust relates to the crimes exposed by operation Branchform, but it relates not only to those crimes. There is also the decades-long influence of Peter Mandelson despite his murky ties to the super-rich such as Epstein; the influence of Russian oligarchs and kleptocrats and the flow of their money into UK politics; the series of huge bungs from the crypto spivs towards Nigel Farage and the rest of the far right; the political influence of the dark money junk tanks peddling propaganda for fossil fuel corporations and other big business; and the routine acceptance of high-priced gifts by serving ministers, from clothes to gig tickets. Those are the kind of freebies that most hard-working people never see, and they are funded not as a perk of the job but by companies and vested interests that all want something in exchange.

The list of issues that have undermined trust in politics is a long one, and for anyone to pretend that only one political party is at fault would be deeply dishonest. It is also not only a domestic problem. This week, we have witnessed the chilling result of the abuse of power by a super-rich owner of social media, Elon Musk, who uses that power to foment racism and violence on our streets. His actions represent a wrecking ball through public trust, yet we allow him to carry on doing business, pumping toxic propaganda into our society and telling people that they cannot trust Government or political parties or even their own neighbours. The overwhelming majority of the public believe that money buys influence in politics; what is worse is that they are clearly right.

The response should begin with a review, but it must be independently led and it must look at these issues across all parties and organisations seeking to buy political influence. That review must also lead to action—the kind of action that UK authorities have, so far, chosen not to take. If this Parliament is sincere in wanting to do what it takes to restore public trust, we need the power to do it as well. The Green amendment is the only option in front of us today that confirms the need for action but ensures that it will be independent instead of partisan. More to the point, it is the only option that says that we need the power to act on the conclusions afterwards. The option in Mr Hepburn’s amendment, of taking no action, should be rejected, but so should the option of holding an inquiry without having the power to do anything about it. That is why I urge the chamber to vote for the Green amendment when we vote today.

17:29

[Made a request to intervene.]

I beg your pardon, Presiding Officer. I was just discovering how much some speeches improve when I remove my hearing aids.

Sadly, today, we have very much seen the debate that I expected. There has been some opportunistic partisanship dressed up as principled concern, and there has been a touch too much defensiveness on the other side, too. We should all recognise Peter Murrell’s crimes as his crimes, committed against the SNP, which has been betrayed both professionally and personally in a deplorable way. The party will feel pain about that, and it has a right to feel angry about it. That is very different from the view of Anas Sarwar, who stated in his opening speech that the SNP should own the shame of those crimes. I wonder whether he thinks that the victim owns the shame of any other type of crime. I thought that we all condemned that attitude.

SNP members have a right to feel anger, not shame, at the crimes committed against them, and they have a right to know that their party has put its finances and its governance on a sound footing; however, that is ultimately a matter for them. Throughout the reporting and debating of the scandal, there have been regular insinuations that the Scottish Government is implicated or that Peter Murrell embezzled money from the Government. If anyone has evidence of that, they should present it. If not, the innuendo is beneath contempt. Although Labour presents the debate as being about restoring public trust in politics, to encourage or even hint at such misleading insinuations can only further undermine trust.

Peter Murrell’s crimes have been investigated thoroughly. That investigation examined others in the SNP and the party itself, and the result was the establishment of his guilt, and no basis was found to bring charges against others. However, some of the response today amounts to a demand for an investigation into the victim of a crime. Is there more that should be looked at? Were there further crimes that have not yet been prosecuted? That is for the police, the prosecutors and the courts to consider, if there is evidence. Has there been a breach of party political rules and regulations? That is for the Electoral Commission to investigate—again, if there is evidence.

What is the case for a parliamentary inquiry? Mr Sarwar answers that it is the criminal justice process itself that should be investigated. If the justice committee of this Parliament wants to do that, it does not need the permission of the Parliament to do so, but it would need a clear basis for doing so. It does not hold parliamentary inquiries into every criminal prosecution, or even into every very high-profile criminal prosecution. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Mr Sarwar wants this one to be subject to a parliamentary inquiry explicitly because a rival political party is involved.

I am genuinely trying to treat the issue with the seriousness that it deserves. We have proposed a way forward that would be independent. My question to those who are still seeking a parliamentary process is how on earth, realistically, they would expect that to avoid the naked partisanship that we saw during the inquiry into the Alex Salmond allegations in session 5, in which evidence that was given by witnesses off the record, to protect their privacy, was leaked by members of the Parliament.

To ask the Scottish Government, in light of comments made by the First Minister in the Parliament on 2 June that the Scottish Government prioritises active and safe travel routes and the encouragement of cycling, walking and wheeling, for what reason Transport Scotland reportedly reduced the revenue funding for regional transport partnerships’ people and place programmes by 60 per cent, during the election purdah period. (S7O-00021)

I am sorry that the cabinet secretary did not choose to answer that question by explaining why the cut took place and why it took place during the election purdah period. I have returned to my job to meet local community organisations that are doing the work that the Scottish Government says it wants to see happen, and which are seeing that their entire funding has been pulled from under them. Unless that decision is reversed, community groups around the country that are delivering the work that the Government says it wants to see happen will lose their staff, their skills, their expertise and all trust in the Scottish Government prioritising the issue. Will the cabinet secretary reverse that decision urgently?

Nah.

I am grateful for that comment. I hope that, if Stephen Flynn is right, we will hear more about the concept of the wellbeing economy, which we did not hear much about today. However, one thing that he was unclear about in his remarks was Rosebank. He blamed Tory environmental assessments for having blocked it. Will he confirm whether he still supports what I took to be the Scottish Government’s position—that it supports environmental assessments—and that those projects must pass a climate compatibility test, whatever on earth that actually means? If they are not compatible with climate action, they should not go ahead.