Meeting of the Parliament 10 June 2026 [Draft]
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.