Patrick Harvie
Scottish Green Party · Scotland
“That challenge is important because, when other politicians and the media choose to ignore the arguments of far-right populism or, worse still, excuse them under the guise of “legitimate concerns”, they gradually legitimise them.”
“That is how we build, to quote the motion, “a successful nation, where everyone can feel hope”. It is how we pay to protect public services, tackle poverty and more. However, how could we expect a political party that is run by millionaires and funded by billionaires to understand that or even to care?”
“These cause disruption and devastation, highlighting the vulnerability of our globally interconnected societies.” As Brian Hoskins, the chair of the Grantham research institute on climate change and the environment, has said, “the discourse around net zero is increasingly decoupled from that science and our changing weather.”
“Patrick Harvie: No, I will not be taking interventions. Those are the voices that we should be listening to, not Nigel Farage’s hand-picked politicians.”
“To be honest, I was tempted to ignore this debate altogether. I can think of a dozen better things I could do with a few hours than debate one of the most incoherent motions that I have seen in 23 years in this Parliament. Goodness knows what shape it was in when the chamber desk first got its hands on it and tried to sort it out.”
“On net zero, which yesterday’s debate showed most political parties understand to be a necessity and an opportunity, Reform members repeatedly said that they support the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change position even as they appealed for ever more fossil fuels while the mercury rises outside.”
The complete record
Every one of 544 lines we hold for Patrick Harvie, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 11.
“Paul O’Kane says, quite honestly, that he does not know the detail of the incoming benefit cuts; I do not know the detail either—none of us does with 100 per cent certainty, but we certainly know that they are coming. The cuts will not cause pain for the likes of us—those of us who sit in the chamber on generous salaries. They will be targeted at those who are much more vulnerable. On energy, the single biggest step that I would like to see from the UK Government is the decoupling of energy bills, because the artificial link between gas and electricity prices means that the cheap, abundant, clean, green and renewable electricity that we are generating is not benefiting people in their bills. As for the Scottish Government, it is watering down rent controls proposals and has reintroduced peak-time rail fares.”
“I still want to know more about the detail of how that will work, because there is a lack of clarity. Both Governments also have major shortcomings. The UK Government has no willingness to use rent controls, for example, and it still permits precarious working conditions. It refuses to bring in progressive income tax, which has already been shown to be effective in Scotland, or a wealth tax, which is one of the things that is so lacking, given the structure of inequality in our society. Even if GB Energy is successful in bringing about more public ownership of the energy system, Labour is still willing to do the bidding of the nuclear industry lobbyists, despite the eye-wateringly high price of both new and old nuclear.”
“Patrick Harvie: We need to have a serious conversation about cutting back on the level of chronic inequality in relation to the distribution of wealth in our society, because that is the fundamental problem. If we want Scandinavian levels of public services—which I do—we need Scandinavian levels of taxation. We cannot have high levels of public services and US levels of taxation. The lack of a wealth tax is critical in that regard. I want to come on to the UK Government, which has taken really positive steps, such as raising the minimum wage and capping bus fares. The warm home discount is mentioned in Scottish Labour’s amendment. Although there is still some ambiguity about it, the UK Government is open to some element of a role for public ownership in energy through Great British Energy.”
“There is the commitment to take action on the two-child limit and the winter fuel payment, and benefits— including unique ones such as the Scottish child payment—have been uprated. Therefore, the Scottish Government has taken many positive steps. I also want to acknowledge the positive steps that the current UK Government has taken. Liz Smith: If we are to provide all those universal benefits—a case can be made for virtually all of them—does Mr Harvie agree that we need to have a serious debate about the level of funding and to make some very difficult but nonetheless essential choices about cutting back on some public expenditure that we simply cannot afford?”
“Liz Smith unsafely made the assumption of good faith on the part of far-right politicians such as Trump and, indeed, Liz Truss. That assumption should not be held. I will look at the record of the two Governments. On the Scottish Government side, there are, of course, positives to talk about. For example, recently, there was the rent freeze, although, sadly, there will now be a cliff edge instead of a taper that would have allowed people to have a soft landing from that temporary policy. There is free bus travel for under-22s, and action has been taken over a number of years on the cost of the school day. There is the continued commitment to free prescriptions, and we do not saddle students with tens of thousands of pounds of debt before they have even started their careers.”
“As well as the inflation of recent years, there were many years of austerity and rising inequality in our society and around the world, so improving people’s living standards urgently is something that the Scottish Government, the UK Government and, frankly, any part of the political spectrum that believes in democracy and basic values of equality and human rights need to tackle, because the far right is now a sufficient existential threat to those assumptions about our society. It is very successful—frighteningly successful—at tapping into people’s genuine anxieties about their standard of living, so there is an urgent need to raise people’s standard of living in order to politically inoculate our society against those toxic values.”
“However, this debate would have benefited from a slightly more open and reflective approach from Labour and the SNP, which seem to be using their motion or amendment for today’s debate principally to lay out their stall about what their Government is doing. I acknowledge the reason why they might want to do that, but the truth is that there are positives and shortcomings from both Governments. The importance of the issue cuts across party- political differences in many areas.”
“Like Paul O’Kane, I begin by acknowledging Liz Smith’s recent announcement about her future. She has the distinction among Conservative members that, even when she says things that I find objectionable, she always says them in a constructive tone of voice. That is something at least—not all of her colleagues are able to manage that. I wish her well on a personal level, as I do other members who have made similar announcements. I am grateful for the chance to debate the wide range of issues that are raised in the motion, including the wider cost of living agenda and specific energy issues, which connect to last week’s debate on energy policy.”
“We are also continuing our child winter heating payment, through which we provided £7.8 million last year to support more than 33,000 children, young people and their families who had higher energy needs due to disability or a health condition. That benefit is not available elsewhere in the UK. This coming winter, we expect to invest more than £65 million in total in our three winter heating benefits. Those programmes provide vital support with energy bills to more than 630,000 people.”
“However, our efforts are being undermined by the policies of the UK Government—not least the two-child cap. That is why we will develop the necessary systems to deal with the impact of the two-child cap in 2026, with the Child Poverty Action Group forecasting that scrapping the two-child cap in Scotland could lift 15,000 children out of poverty. The Tory two-child cap is now the Labour two- child cap, and it is the Scottish Government that will deliver for the people of Scotland and rid them of that despicable policy. Frankly, it is unforgivable that the Labour Party is standing idly by while children are being pushed into poverty every single day because of that policy.”
“Let me be clear that, once again, when Westminster chose to stand by as energy bills rocketed and chose to rip away vital support such as the winter fuel payment, the Scottish Government took action, and we have delivered. Today, we will go further. I am announcing more investment to ensure that families get the help that they need, when they need it. In the year ahead, we will continue our support for the Wise Group’s relational mentoring programme by making just over £2.1 million available. That will allow the Wise Group to provide vital wraparound support to about 2,000 families, which will help them not only to address immediate needs but to make longer- term improvements in their lives. We know that our action is making a difference; it is helping to improve the lives and outcomes of people in households across Scotland.”
“In November, I announced that I will introduce regulations that, in the winter of 2025-26, will introduce a universal pension age winter heating payment of at least £100 for every Scottish pensioner household. Pensioners who are in receipt of a relevant low-income benefit will receive £200 or £300, depending on their age. That universal benefit will provide much-needed support that is not available elsewhere in the UK, and it will apply to all Scottish pensioner households, as was always the intention before the UK Government made the cruel and undignified decision to cut the winter fuel payment for those more vulnerable pensioners in our society.”
“In November, I announced that the Government would invest a further £20 million in the Scottish welfare fund’s budget, to be distributed to councils in the current financial year. That increase is helping councils to meet increased demand on the fund and to provide vital support to people who are in crisis. I also confirmed that we would invest an additional £20 million in the warmer homes Scotland scheme, which is our national fuel poverty scheme, to take the total investment there to £85 million in the current financial year. The scheme focuses on long-term sustainable measures, and that additional funding will help about 1,500 additional households to install energy efficiency measures and more efficient heating systems.”
“We are continuing to expand the provision of free school meals so that more children can benefit. Overall, we will invest about £40 million to expand meal provision to children in primaries 6 and 7 whose families are in receipt of the Scottish child payment and to trial an expansion for those in secondaries 1 to 3 in eight local authority areas. Over 25,000 more children will benefit from that support. This year, the budget for local government provides record funding of more than £15 billion, which represents one of the largest increases in funding in recent times. Indeed, the local government settlement will have increased by more than £1 billion when compared with that for 2024-25, including funding allocated for this year’s pay deals. The Scottish Government has acted decisively to lower household costs.”
“Because the best and most sustainable route out of poverty is good employment, we are investing up to £90 million in the delivery of devolved employability services. That includes specific funding to continue supporting parents towards and into employment and then sustaining it, and to embed child poverty co-ordinators in our local authorities. We are investing more than £2.6 billion to support public transport and to make our transport systems available, affordable and accessible to all. That will help to connect parents to employment, training and skills opportunities and the services that they need to navigate their way out of poverty. It also includes £415 million for concessionary bus travel, which enables access to free bus travel for 2.3 million people across Scotland.”
“There is a balance that we must strike. I am absolutely committed to the delivery of rent controls, but it is also important that the Government supports private rented sector landlords and private developers that seek to invest in Scotland. The Minister for Housing has written to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to call for the local housing allowance freeze to be scrapped in the upcoming spring statement. I hope that Labour members will join us in making that call. The Scottish budget will help to tackle the housing emergency by supporting immediate actions that will return existing housing stock to use and will increase acquisitions. We will also invest an additional £4 million to enable local authorities, front-line services and relevant partners to prepare for the new homelessness prevention duties.”
“It sounds as though the cabinet secretary’s argument would be justification for opposing what the Scottish Government intends to do to the Housing (Scotland) Bill. Its amendments intend to lock in above-inflation rent rises everywhere, even where rent control areas are in place. Even if it is only at this late stage, will the Government change direction and think again on that? Shirley-Anne Somerville: I appreciate the work that Patrick Harvie has done on the issue over many years. However, I fundamentally disagree with him on that part of the proposal. We feel that it is important to have such a cap, and we will lodge amendments on that. However, it is also exceptionally important to give certainty to the private rented sector and private developers, because we need to ensure continued investment in Scotland.”
“The proposed law was, without explanation, already overdue back in December. Here we are in March, but there is still no legislation and no explanation. The Presiding Officer: Question, please. Patrick Harvie: Where is it?”
“Happy news is a rare and precious thing in these times, so I echo the congratulations to the First Minister and his family on their new arrival. In April, energy bills are set to rise for the third time in less than a year, and people across Scotland are worried about those bills. At the same time, energy companies are raking in vast profits at the expense of people and the planet. Our energy markets are broken. We could both say what we think the United Kingdom Government should do to fix those markets, but the Scottish Government has also promised action that has not been taken. My most recent question to the First Minister was nearly three months ago. I asked him about his promise of a new law to end our reliance on gas for home heating—law that is vital to tackling the climate emergency and cutting people’s bills.”
“Sport and Physical Activity (Dumfries and Galloway) 5.”
“If we believe in the principle of religious freedom, surely it is clear that any pupil who is mature enough to decide that they are not a believer should not be required to go through a pretence of religious observance. Can the cabinet secretary assure us that, in analysing the consultation responses, she will give due regard to the views of young people who want to make what is a perfectly reasonable choice for themselves? Jenny Gilruth: Of course, I recognise the member’s views. It is important that we balance them accordingly, and I am also mindful of the range of different views on the topic. As I said in my response to Ms Mochan, I will give due consideration to those views once I have received the consultation analysis. I can then set out more detail on the associated timescales. The Presiding Officer: Question 4 was not lodged.”
“I move amendment S6M-16657.1, to insert at end: “; believes, however, that for the benefits of renewable energy to be maximised, further action is needed; further believes that both governments should place a higher priority on public and community ownership of renewable energy infrastructure; recognises the need for the UK Government to make changes to energy regulation and pricing to incentivise renewable generation, storage and grid infrastructure, and to make electrification of heat and transport more financially attractive, and further recognises the urgent need for the Scottish Government to end the delays to the Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan and the planned Heat in Buildings Bill, which must be introduced to the Parliament as soon as possible.” 15:47”
“That was accelerating in the first two years of the current parliamentary session, and the bill was on track to be introduced before the end of 2024. Now the bill is absent, with no explanation. Renewables growth did not happen by magic. Scotland was successful because successive Governments gave clear and consistent signals to innovators, investors, the workforce and policy makers that Scotland was serious about renewables. That is the clarity that we need on the clean heat sector—for building owners, investors, installers and those who train them, and for the businesses that are innovating in new systems. The benefits are there for the taking in jobs, reduced bills, emissions cuts and energy security, but only if the Scottish Government ends the delay, commits to a truly ambitious agenda and puts the bill before the Parliament now.”
“Despite our strong track record on renewables, there has been little to no progress on other sectors such as land, buildings and transport, and there is now a series of delays to the energy strategy and just transition plan. I have seen suggestions that the legal rulings on the unlawful approval of Rosebank and Jackdaw have in some way led to those delays. That can be the case only if the Government proposes to express positive support for those unlawfully approved developments. The heat in buildings bill would relate to one of the most obvious areas in which we do not just need to cut emissions but to deploy systems that can use renewable electricity to displace fossil fuels at scale and in a way that will cut people’s bills.”
“With communities owning their own heat infrastructure and renewable generating capacity, that experience shows us that we do not need to replicate an energy system that extracts profit from people in fuel poverty. Douglas Lumsden: Will the member take an intervention? Patrick Harvie: I do not have time, I am afraid. We have an energy system that is still regulated as though it is for the needs of the 20th century. Renewable electricity is the cheapest power to generate and should be the cheapest to consume, but the way that the UK regulates the energy market artificially increases its price to consumers and acts as a barrier to people shifting away from fossil fuels for heat and transport. We also have a gap between the political desire to be seen as climate leaders and the political courage to act.”
“There is a strong case for an ambitious target for the amount of wholly community-owned renewable energy in Scotland and for priority access to land for community energy to make that target a reality. The Government must put in place support for community projects to access the capital that they need for repowering. Commercial repowering must also deliver community benefit, just as new-build commercial wind should. That is in addition to the need to learn from the best of Denmark’s experience, which has been building heat networks for 50 years and doing it for public benefit rather than for private profit, which protects its energy consumers.”
“We have skills in oil and gas that can transfer to many new industries, including areas such as green hydrogen, if both Governments are proactive, because we know that the oil and gas companies will not be. Scotland also has many areas where we need to catch up on lost ground. We waste too much energy and we still construct our buildings as though energy is cheap to use. There have been improvements in energy efficiency standards in new builds, but that must go further. We have to start treating investment in the energy efficiency of existing buildings as a national strategic infrastructure priority. We rely too much on private ownership and not enough on public and community ownership.”
“Patrick Harvie: All of the range of technologies that I have just described are the reason why we are moving away from the world where centralised base-load generation is required and towards a more diverse, decentralised energy system. In short, the clean, secure and energy-efficient energy system that we need simply does not rely on nuclear. Let us look at where Scotland’s advantages lie. We have a strong track record on renewables. Successive Governments have set targets that many so-called experts dismissed; they said that renewables would never generate that much. However, those targets were successfully exceeded. In some years, we are now generating more in renewable electricity than the electricity that we consume.”
“However, we are seeing the emergence of a new energy system that is based on diverse, decentralised renewable generation, demand reduction, large-scale deployment of new forms of energy storage and lots of interconnection for highly efficient, long-distance electricity trading between markets, and smart technology to smooth the variability of demand and supply. Sarah Boyack: On the point about having a base-load, we absolutely need renewables, but you also have intermittent renewables, and much more electricity supply is needed. Is it not a win- win to do both? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Please speak through the chair.”
“Although designs and prototypes have been in development for decades, they are still not delivering on a commercial scale anywhere in the world. If SMRs ever end up delivering on their long- promised advantages, those advantages will depend on deployment at scale, including through standardised design models and minimising on- site construction. That is not great for the jobs argument that some of the advocates rely on either. As for the argument about base-load, if the task before us was simply to rebuild like for like a low- carbon version of the 20th century energy system, the concept of base-load cannot be avoided.”
“There is a great deal to talk about, so I hope that the task of dismissing the argument for new nuclear will be the quick part of this speech. The minister already mentioned costs. The massive up-front capital costs that have to be repaid over the operational lifetime mean that new nuclear will deliver energy at £109 per megawatt hour, compared with less than half of that—£44 for offshore wind, £41 for large-scale solar and just £38 for onshore wind. On timescales, we know that emission cuts are needed quickly and that nuclear is slow to deliver. That goes for big projects such as Hinkley C, which was announced in 2010 and is unlikely to operate before the 2030s after a vast cost overrun. It is also true for the idea of small modular reactors, with which some nuclear lobbyists have a current love affair.”
“As we transition to a clean energy system, we must ensure that, as well as being clean, energy should enhance economic growth and be secure and affordable. That is why we have been clear that the UK Government’s intended investment in nuclear energy—”
“The construction of new nuclear power stations is hugely expensive and would inevitably lead to a further increase in consumer energy bills. For example, when Hinkley Point C was given the green light by the UK Government, it was due to be completed by 2025 at a cost of £18 billion; however, last month, EDF Energy estimated that the project might not be completed until 2031, at a cost of up to £46 billion—more than two and a half times the original cost estimate. Neither is the news better for electricity consumers: even the UK Government’s own estimates show that the cost for new nuclear power is £109 per megawatt hour, compared with £38 and £44 per megawatt hour for onshore wind and offshore wind respectively. New nuclear generation will increase bills.”
“I will continue with my speech, if that is okay. I mentioned the creation of a dangerous and long- lasting radioactive waste legacy, but we cannot discuss nuclear power without also referring to its capacity to cause catastrophic damage through accidents and malfunctions. We have been lucky that that has not happened in Scotland, but nuclear has a tainted safety history, with terrible incidents having occurred at Chernobyl and, more recently, at Fukushima in Japan. In developing new clean energy systems for the future, we have a moral imperative to ensure that they do not have the ability to threaten the existence of any population or the environment that we depend on. As long as there are serious environmental concerns, the Scottish Government is wholly unconvinced by the economic argument for the development of new nuclear.”
“Will the cabinet secretary give way on that point? Gillian Martin: This will be the last intervention that I take. Patrick Harvie: Has the minister seen the United Kingdom Climate Change Committee’s report “The Seventh Carbon Budget”, which was published a week or 10 days ago? It concludes very clearly that, although hydrogen will have many other uses in the energy system, it will have no role in domestic heating. Gillian Martin: I have seen the report, but I have heard from quite a few different sources on the matter—not least, from Southern Gas Networks, or SGN, which believes that a combination that includes hydrogen in the gas grid could be used to decarbonise the existing gas infrastructure. I do not think that we should rule anything out. We do not know what will happen in the future, with regard to technologies.”
“We in the Scottish Government must be satisfied—we will work closely with the United Kingdom Government in this respect—and we must be certain that we are doing all that we can to protect the resilience, resolve, capacity and capability of our country, and that includes our data systems. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs will brief the Cabinet on those issues regularly and take forward the point that we agreed this morning about the importance of that exercise being carried out.”
“Truth is so important in the conduct of these issues, because we all know that Ukraine, as a democratic society, was invaded by an aggressor—Russia—and nothing should be expressed that does not make that point centrally in this discussion. Secondly, the Scottish Government keeps all issues in relation to cybersecurity under active review at all times. Indeed, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, who has responsibility for civil contingencies and resilience in the Government, briefed the Cabinet this morning on the steps that are being taken to review our posture. The issues that we, as a society and as a country, are facing are affected by the Ukrainian conflict and the events that are taking their course.”
“Trump’s choice to realign the US with Russia and against not only Ukraine but democratic Europe is clear, and it is astonishing that some voices in the UK’s politics and media are pretending that the world has not changed fundamentally. I want to ask the First Minister about a matter that is within his devolved responsibility. Following the US decision to cease cybersecurity operations against Russia, does he agree that he must ensure that data and systems relating to all functions of the Scottish Government and Scottish public services must be secured? Will he urgently commission a review to identify whether any current or potential US partner company should now be considered a security risk? The First Minister: I will make two points in response to that. First, Patrick Harvie used the term “truth”.”
“I join others in welcoming the consul general of Ukraine, and I recognise the impact of these discussions on Ukraine and on Ukrainians who are living in Scotland. The Scottish Greens stand fully in support of the political unity in defence of Ukraine’s sovereignty that the First Minister has spoken of and which I had hoped that all political parties would express in the chamber today, instead of making party-political points. I recognise the dignity of President Zelenskyy and his courageous display of self-respect in the face of the astonishing mistreatment that he was subjected to on Friday. [Applause.] He told the truth and challenged Russian propaganda. Scotland has strong solidarity with Ukraine and is outraged at those who would abandon it to an aggressor, but these events threaten all countries, including our own.”
“If Scottish Labour had that ambition, it would use the budget process to negotiate for positive, constructive change, but it does not do that either. It also refuses to back progressive tax changes, which can very easily begin to redistribute wealth from the richest to the rest.”
“Anas Sarwar’s comments yesterday were dismissive of the Scottish child payment, saying that “we have this pretence in Scotland that somehow welfare is the only route out of poverty” and that the Scottish Government “wants to pretend that one single benefit or payment has the answer.” Neither I, nor anti-poverty organisations, nor the Scottish Government, have ever claimed that it was the answer, but it is the single most effective intervention from either Government in recent years. If Labour was willing to learn from what has worked, it would be copying that policy throughout the rest of the UK, not undermining it here. If the Labour UK Government had that ambition but, for party political reasons, did not want to copy what the SNP had done, it would at least reverse the worst Tory decisions, such as the two-child limit, but it will not.”
“Economic growth on its own, without sustained and serious state intervention to ensure redistribution, does not create a trickle-down economy; it creates a hoover-up economy, empowering the wealthiest to further exploit the work of those on lower incomes. Labour, on the other hand, seems determined, in the early stages of its term in UK Government, to disappoint. I will give credit where it is due: I really welcome the action that has been promised on the minimum wage, especially if Labour follows through on the commitment to abolish the discriminatory age bans. That will be a significant step. I give credit where it is due—but Labour does not seem willing to do the same.”
“Far too many others appear to have no interest in doing that. Some seem to have little interest in reality. The Conservatives’ dismissal of pretty much everything that the Government is doing was bizarre enough, but their leader’s suggestion that the one thing that was wrong with Liz Truss was that she was not in power longer seemed even more bizarre. There was also their failure to recognise the UK Government’s track record—the impact of tax giveaways to high earners and a brutal approach to social security—as well as the familiar ideological debate that we have had before, and will have again, on growth. The record of even just this country’s economy is that there have been periods of high economic growth while whole communities have been put on the economic scrap heap.”
“The Scottish Government’s motion describes child poverty as its “single greatest priority” and as a “national mission”. All political parties agree that it should be such a mission, but it is completely legitimate to debate, as do the amendments, whether the Government’s actions match the rhetoric, and every political party has a choice in how we take part in that debate. Do we really advance that debate purely by making party political points? We all do that, and there is nothing wrong with making party political points in a debate like this, but solely doing that, without also offering positive, constructive ideas of our own, does not advance the debate, move it forward or achieve change in the real world. Whether in budget debates or at any other time, Greens have always sought to make a difference for people in the real world.”