Hansard

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.

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. 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? 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. 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. 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. 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 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.

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 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.

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