Chamber and committees

To ask the Scottish Government what renewed action it will take to improve tree equity in Scotland’s urban areas. (S6O-05584)

More than a quarter of Glasgow’s neighbourhoods have less than 10 per cent tree canopy cover, and those areas have some of the lowest tree equity scores in Scotland. Almost 40 per cent of our neighbourhoods are considered to be a high priority for action to improve tree equity. I listened to the cabinet secretary’s answer, but what action will she take for Glasgow specifically to make sure that the protection, management and expansion of Scotland’s urban trees and woods will benefit those in the Glasgow community?

No, I will not, thank you; I am in my last minute. [Interruption.] I am sorry—I said no to the intervention.

I will not—I have just started.

In our 2021 manifesto the Scottish Conservatives made a clear commitment to introduce a recall system for MSPs, because accountability should not stop once someone is elected. However, the bill that is before us today is a watered-down version of what it could have been. It could have finally begun to close the gap. My colleague’s amendments would have put in the bill clear thresholds and safeguards and the requirement for a meaningful level of public support before a seat could be vacated.

Let us be honest about why the bill exists. Scotland has seen high-profile cases in which MSPs resigned from Government, vanished from public life and stopped doing the job that they were elected to do, yet they continued to draw a full taxpayer-funded salary. Not only is that embarrassing; it amounts to a breach of trust. Every time that the Parliament fails to act decisively, public confidence takes another hit.

No, I will not, thank you.

My colleague’s amendments could have allowed a very different message to be sent. They said that no one is untouchable, that standards matter and that, when those standards are breached, the public—not politicians—should get the final say.

They also would have put measures in the bill to improve the transparency and accessibility of the recall process. If recall is to happen, it must be clear, workable and trusted by voters and by the people who administer the process. That is why clarity on timing, reporting and oversight matters. Accountability must not only exist but be seen to exist.

Too often in this chamber we hear speeches about restoring trust in politics. However, trust is not restored by warm words or worthy statements but by action, by drawing firm lines, by enforcing standards and by refusing to protect errant colleagues.

A very simple principle underlies the bill and also my colleague Sue Webber’s amendments: when politicians fall below the standards expected of them, there must be real consequences. For too long in Scotland, that has not been the case. Voters have watched MSPs break the law, breach parliamentary standards or walk away from their responsibilities and yet remain protected by a system that prioritises politicians over the public. That is not acceptable, which is exactly why the bill and my colleague’s amendments mattered. I am disappointed that the Parliament has voted those amendments down.

No, I will not, thank you; I am in my last minute. [Interruption.] I am sorry—I said no to the intervention.

I will not—I have just started.

In our 2021 manifesto the Scottish Conservatives made a clear commitment to introduce a recall system for MSPs, because accountability should not stop once someone is elected. However, the bill that is before us today is a watered-down version of what it could have been. It could have finally begun to close the gap. My colleague’s amendments would have put in the bill clear thresholds and safeguards and the requirement for a meaningful level of public support before a seat could be vacated.

Let us be honest about why the bill exists. Scotland has seen high-profile cases in which MSPs resigned from Government, vanished from public life and stopped doing the job that they were elected to do, yet they continued to draw a full taxpayer-funded salary. Not only is that embarrassing; it amounts to a breach of trust. Every time that the Parliament fails to act decisively, public confidence takes another hit.

No, I will not, thank you.

My colleague’s amendments could have allowed a very different message to be sent. They said that no one is untouchable, that standards matter and that, when those standards are breached, the public—not politicians—should get the final say.

They also would have put measures in the bill to improve the transparency and accessibility of the recall process. If recall is to happen, it must be clear, workable and trusted by voters and by the people who administer the process. That is why clarity on timing, reporting and oversight matters. Accountability must not only exist but be seen to exist.

Too often in this chamber we hear speeches about restoring trust in politics. However, trust is not restored by warm words or worthy statements but by action, by drawing firm lines, by enforcing standards and by refusing to protect errant colleagues.

A very simple principle underlies the bill and also my colleague Sue Webber’s amendments: when politicians fall below the standards expected of them, there must be real consequences. For too long in Scotland, that has not been the case. Voters have watched MSPs break the law, breach parliamentary standards or walk away from their responsibilities and yet remain protected by a system that prioritises politicians over the public. That is not acceptable, which is exactly why the bill and my colleague’s amendments mattered. I am disappointed that the Parliament has voted those amendments down.