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 2 of 11.
“A modern, progressive property tax would help cut inequality, let our councils invest in their services and help prevent even worse inflation in the cost of housing. I know that it is a political challenge—let us be in no doubt about that—but if the Scottish Government is remotely serious about the need for further steps on wealth taxation, it simply cannot continue to ignore the most important element of wealth tax that is within its control, which is the broken, inefficient and unfair council tax.”
“This Parliament has achieved a lot and, as its authority has grown as the seat of Scotland’s self-government, its confidence as an institution has grown. However, the most glaring omission—and the challenge that has been ducked time and time again—is reform of the council tax. The council tax was unfair even when it was introduced, but it has grown ever more regressive as property values have spiralled, and it is inadequate to meet local government’s needs. It now represents a small fraction of the revenue that our councils need, and it locks them into growing dependency on the national Government. Given that it is still based on 1991 valuations, it will be an astonishing 40 years out of date by the end of the current session of Parliament if we, collectively, do not act. That must not be allowed to happen.”
“However, let us be clear that, welcome as those steps are, they have, on their own, been modest measures in both the scale of the revenues that they generate and their power to address the current maldistribution of wealth. Is there more that we could do if we had greater fiscal power? Of course there is, and Greens support that call. I am particularly pleased that Labour has lodged a positive and constructive amendment that does not seek to remove that possibility from the Government’s motion. It is equally critical that we do not use that possibility of new powers as cover—as an excuse to delay action that we can take within existing powers. The single most significant element of wealth tax in Scotland is a broken system, and it is the single biggest example of failure in the history of devolution.”
“To be clear, I note that I really welcome the progress that has been made—and I should, as a lot of it has been the result of pressure from the Greens. The private jet tax and the mansion tax are both positive steps that show that tax can be successfully targeted at those with the most and those who consume more than their share. I am also pleased that support is growing for the so- called Amazon tax: a tax that is targeted at some of the biggest and wealthiest companies doing business—the online retailers. The Greens support that, the SNP supports it and I understand that Labour supports it, too. Today’s Green amendment gives Parliament the chance to endorse it.”
“Patrick Harvie: If the member reads the briefing that I have just mentioned, he will see that the vast majority of millionaires who were canvassed by that organisation are more worried about doctors leaving the country than they are about millionaires leaving the country. We need to face up to the fact that what poses as trickle-down economics is, in reality, hoover-up economics. It always was, and it has led to the hoarding of wealth by those who are least in need. If the SNP now agrees and accepts the case for a bigger role for wealth taxation, that is great, but we will need to hear some specifics—more than we see in the motion—and if cross-party talks are being offered, they will need to come with real political will to act.”
“Tax Justice Scotland, which includes Oxfam Scotland, the Poverty Alliance, the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland and others, describes wealth taxation as “one of the most promising opportunities for building a more prosperous and sustainable Scotland.” We also know that 85 per cent of people in Scotland want taxes on the wealthy to increase. That figure includes a large majority of people who are, themselves, very wealthy, as the organisation Patriotic Millionaires has shown in its briefing. Craig Hoy: Would Patrick Harvie concede the point that the very wealthy are also likely to be the most mobile and that they can therefore take their wealth and their assets out of Scotland?”
“This is my first opportunity on the record to congratulate the new Deputy First Minister on her appointment. I am pleased that she has chosen to debate this topic so early in the session. Greens have laid the case for wealth taxes. Both here and at UK level, it is Green voices that are most clearly advocating for change. We do that because we know that the richest 2 per cent have more wealth than half the population combined and because we believe that that is simply indefensible. It is not only the Greens who believe that. Members will have seen briefings for today’s debate from a range of organisations. The Scottish Trades Union Congress tells us that the “growth in wealth of Scotland’s ten richest people … has outstripped workers’ wages more than sixfold since” this Parliament first met in 1999.”
“To ask the Scottish Government how it plans to address harm caused by disinformation and conspiracy theories, including climate denial propaganda. (S7O-00012)”
“It is an urgent response to the climate crisis to cut our emissions in heat and transport, as we have done in electricity generation, but it is also the only coherent and credible way to cut the cost of living and free people from the continual cycle of fossil fuel price hikes and crises. It is also the only way to achieve credible energy security— The Presiding Officer: Thank you. Patrick Harvie: —and national security, because every step that we take towards decarbonisation takes geopolitical power away from some of the world’s most dangerous and violent regimes. The Presiding Officer: I was a bit lax with you, Mr Harvie, but that takes time from other members, so please try to keep within your time. Even given the time for interventions that you accepted, you are still considerably over. I call Mr Offord. You have three minutes. 16:45”
“I challenge the SNP to accept the reality on those projects and the reasons why they should not be given the go- ahead. Whatever energy policy the SNP finally adopts, having Scotland’s energy in Scotland’s hands has to mean more than just bringing decision-making powers here. It has to mean ending the assumption that the entire system— The Presiding Officer: Will you wind up, please? Patrick Harvie: —remains in the hands of big business. Kristopher Leask spoke clearly about the opportunity for more community ownership of energy, and in that area we need to catch up with our European neighbours. Ending our reliance on fossil fuels is urgent.”
“Patrick Harvie: I have seen a huge amount of disinformation about the comparative emissions associated with that, but I also know that the vast majority of what would come from Rosebank would be exported anyway. The UK public would be carrying around 90 per cent of the costs of developing Rosebank through subsidies and tax breaks. The profits, though, would go to the oil and gas giants, which make nothing more than a token investment in the transition. They include one that is directly complicit in illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine. Supporting that would make a mockery of the SNP’s backing for boycott, divestment and sanctions. We also know that, like every other fossil fuel company that is currently laying off people, they will abandon communities and workers as soon as the profits dry up.”
“Greens want powers on energy, but we want them for a purpose. In relation to Jackdaw and Rosebank, I remind members that Rosebank would produce more than 200 million tonnes of CO2, which is more than the combined annual emissions of 28 of the lowest- income countries in the world—that is, more than the emissions created by 700 million people. Those people have done the least to cause the climate crisis, but they are already suffering its effects the most. Liam Kerr: I presume that the member would acknowledge that the emissions from any oil and gas taken from the North Sea are three times less than the emissions from any oil and gas imported from places such as Qatar.”
“The SNP already knows that it has a climate plan that is not up to the task, so the real danger is that it will feel that it can play the next five years on easy mode. All that the SNP will need to do is say that climate change is real and, by comparison with that lot, it will look as though it is a leader, even as some of its own parliamentarians echo the “Drill, baby, drill” mantra of the far right. I remind the SNP that the high point of its popularity came when it provided clarity and leadership—when Nicola Sturgeon made climate a priority and made it clear that Rosebank should not go ahead. By contrast, the SNP’s lack of clarity now, in demanding energy powers but still refusing to publish an energy strategy, and in its desire to face both ways on climate leadership while sounding like oil and gas lobbyists, will not stand.”
“Such drivel from the far-right blogosphere and the junk tanks is now clearly going to be heard in our Parliament as well. However, it is heard not only in this Parliament, and I think that we need to worry less about its effect here than about the effect in other places, because that kind of online conspiracy theorising and propaganda, amplified by AI slop and pumped out by billionaire-funded media platforms, is now the information environment in which many of our citizens live. If the Scottish Government wants to make any progress at all on climate, it will need to develop a robust response to the growing wave of disinformation and conspiracy theories. With regard to climate denial arguments, though, my real worry for this parliamentary session is not so much about them winning the day in Parliament but about their impact on the SNP.”
“I suspect that every MSP in every part of Scotland will be able to find examples of where climate action is improving people’s lives if we choose to look for them, rather than turn away. I am well used to disagreeing with other parties in this chamber on matters of policy, particularly with those that are happy to set climate targets and then block climate action. It is pretty clear from today’s debate that that dynamic will continue. However, we also face a new dynamic in Parliament, in which we will disagree not only on matters of policy but on matters of fundamental reality. In the election that has just finished, I heard candidates say things such as “Carbon dioxide isn’t a problem, really”, or “Climate change is caused by the sun”, or “CO2 is plant food”, and, literally, “There is no climate crisis”.”
“Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am happy to have my first chance on the record to congratulate you and the Deputy Presiding Officers on your appointments. I also congratulate the minister on his appointment. I hope that he enjoys being constructively pushed out of his comfort zone over the next few years, because it is clearly going to be needed. I also congratulate most of those who gave their first speeches today—at least those who chose to engage with the reality of a world in climate crisis. Not all chose to do that. I will pick out one member in particular: Heather Anderson, who spoke about a clear example of climate action in her community in the development of heat networks.”
“Mr Harvie will be aware of the action that this Government is prepared to take—it is in our manifesto—in relation to widening the scope of football banning orders. I am open to any review involving, for example, the criminal law in such matters. That does not, by any stretch of the imagination, allow any other partner, the football authorities or football clubs to walk away from their responsibilities. No solution should be off the table. We need to get together and have very frank, but respectful, conversations. We all need to get on the same page to prevent this from happening. There is evidence that, where they have been implemented in Scotland and elsewhere in Europe, sporting sanctions have an impact.”
“I have lost count of the number of times that questions like this one have been asked in relation to an incident like this one. The citizens of Glasgow are as sick of it as we are—more so, in fact. The behaviour of fans—of whichever club—in such incidents is unacceptable. Surely, it is not enough for the cabinet secretary to talk about encouraging clubs to step up and share responsibility. Is it not time that we were very clear and that we made clubs face legal consequences for the actions of their fans in such circumstances? Angela Constance: I appreciate thoroughly that the good people of Glasgow and the communities impacted by the disorder will be at their wits’ end. As Mr Sweeney said, aspects of that behaviour are predictable, as we have seen over the years.”
“My loyalty remains with all those who call Scotland home. They are sovereign. I, Patrick Harvie, do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm, that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law.”
“To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the United Kingdom Government assessment, “Global biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and national security”, published in January 2026, what assessment it has made of Scotland’s food security and resilience. (S6O-05698)”
“Heat networks are a way to build in private investment, and a plan will be set out for how we will do that in the next session of Parliament. The Presiding Officer: I am keen to protect time for the next item of business, so I would be grateful for concise questions and responses.”
“I have been lobbying the UK Government—two UK Governments—ever since I was Minister for Energy—[Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us hear the cabinet secretary. Gillian Martin: —to reform the electricity market. Both Governments have dithered in that respect, and we are not getting clarity on that. I am getting further with the Labour Government than I ever got with the Conservatives, who barely even wanted to meet me on any of this. However, until the price of electricity comes down, we will not see a seismic shift to electricity-based heating. We have to invest in heat networks. Màiri McAllan has set out some of our plans associated with the new bill that will be introduced, should my party be back in government.”
“Gillian Martin: Màiri McAllan has responsibility for domestic heat now, and she has outlined some of the actions that she will take forward, should she retain her position in the next Government and should we be lucky enough to be back in government. Patrick Harvie worked hard when he was a minister on a set of policies associated with decarbonising heat in buildings. I have to say that I did not find those policies to be particularly conducive to a just transition, in that many of them relied on the cost of electricity coming down. What I did not want to do, as the cabinet secretary with responsibility for climate action, was put forward policies that would mean that we increased fuel poverty.”
“I am grateful for advance sight of the documents. A great many of the criticisms of the draft plan were not about methodology and measurements but policy and substance, given that the SNP has spent much of the past two years delaying, ditching or downgrading climate action. In particular, will the cabinet secretary tell us how on earth she expects to see the scale of investment that Scotland needs in the clean heat sector, having just ripped out the heart of the heat in buildings programme, depriving the industry of the certainty that it needs? Does she have any advice for a future cabinet secretary for climate, who is going to have to deliver a completely impossible scale of acceleration on heat decarbonisation in the 2030s, as a result of this slow action now?”
“The bill will not come into force unless MSPs are satisfied with the treatment of reserved matters. This bill is the path to the safe, compassionate and controlled system that will give meaningful choice, with protection for those who need it most, and that will meet the public will for a change in the law. I urge members to vote yes. 19:01”
“Daniel Johnson: Would the member accept that a number of the safeguards that are present in many parts of Australia are not present in the bill in terms of oversight? I am not sure that it is correct to say that the bill before us would be the most safeguarded legislation. Patrick Harvie: In looking at the various systems around the world, I do not believe that there is one that has this package of safeguards and measures. However, every member must make that judgment for themselves. The bill will have support and advocacy at its heart, and its provisions will be available only for those who are truly reaching the very end of life. It contains within it the path to the most robust protections for those who feel the need to exercise a conscientious objection, with complete democratic control here in this Parliament.”
“That is at the heart of what it means to be a creature that is capable of choosing. I know that there have been legitimate and valid concerns about getting the detail right in the bill. I believe that the work that Liam McArthur has done and the amendments that the Parliament has made give us the chance to allow choice, with meaningful protection for those who need it. The bill would give Scotland the most safeguarded assisted dying system in the world. Working in tandem with palliative care—never against it—it would have support and advocacy at its heart. Daniel Johnson: Will Patrick Harvie give way? Patrick Harvie: I am not sure whether we have time in hand. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There is time for a very brief intervention. Patrick Harvie: I will give way.”
“Secondly, I ask members to reflect on the very fact that our debate has heard about the different principles and values on which we base our choice as legislators, as well as the different values that inform the views of our constituents on both sides of the debate. The different values that we bring to the debate reflect the different values by which we live our own lives and which inform every choice that we make, including as we look ahead to the uncomfortable truth that we will all, each of us, one day, face the end of our own lives. The fact of the different values by which we live is, for me, the central reason why we must respect the right of people to make choices on their own terms, including choices that we might never make for ourselves—even choices of which we might disapprove.”
“I ask members to consider two key points as they reach their final decision. The first is that this is not a choice between the bill and some ideal status quo. In today’s Scotland, far too many of those who reach the end of their lives in the most difficult of circumstances experience fear, unbearable suffering, a desperate desire to have control of what is happening to them and, indeed, pressure or coercion in different forms to make choices that they would not make freely. Even with the very best palliative care, which is something that we all support, that is still the case. The bill is not an alternative to something benign. It is an alternative to a status quo that we should consider unacceptable and unsafe, and which too many people face not only without choice but without the protections that the bill contains.”
“I start by recognising the hard work of Liam McArthur and everyone on his team, as well as the high quality of debate, which other members have acknowledged. Members on both sides of the principles that the bill raises have engaged constructively and respectfully, and I am convinced that the result is a bill that is stronger, thanks to the scrutiny of the Parliament. I know that some members’ opposition to the bill is very strong. For some, that would not have changed, regardless of the detail. I respect that position, but I must take the opportunity today to speak primarily to those who have concerns but who are open to the principle—those who accept the case for a change in the law but who need to know that the system that we are creating would be safe, compassionate and robust.”
“We have far too much support, not just from Opposition parties but from the Scottish Government as well, for forms of house building that serve the interests of landowners and developers, including super-rich build-to-rent organisations that build properties that are put out to rent at the high end or the luxury end, when we should be building the affordable homes that we need. Action is needed on the housing emergency, but, whether it is on addressing rent levels for existing homes, ensuring that we are building the right homes for the future or fixing the mess that the house-building industry has created and ensuring that it fits the bill, we need to have the nerve to stand up to industry lobbyists and not the desire to cave in to them. That is the kind of action that the housing emergency demands of us all. 17:56”
“That clarity has, sadly, been lacking in Scottish Labour’s position. Michael Marra: Does the member recognise, though, that the number of housing completions is at a record low—the lowest level since records began—and that supply is critical to ensuring that people have houses that they can buy or rent and, frankly, to live in? Patrick Harvie: There are many reasons why there are challenges in improving and increasing that supply, but supply is not just about numbers— it is also about type.”
“Patrick Harvie: I will make a little progress, and I will let Mr Marra in in a moment. I am responding specifically to some of his comments. The housing emergency should not be presented as only a numbers game. The numbers of new builds matter, but so does their quality. As for the criticism of industry lobbying points that I made earlier, those were challenged by Michael Marra as though he thinks that, somehow, the Greens do not get it. He seems to have forgotten that it was the Greens who took the boldest steps to address it through the rent freeze and the long- term rent controls—something that Labour figures such as Andy Burnham and Sadiq Khan have long called for because they recognise that the housing emergency goes far beyond Scotland and affects their constituents, too.”
“It is possible, in principle, that an insurance scheme might work, but to be effective it would need to have been in place for many years in the past, and it would not be workable to introduce one now. A levy is the option that will work, even if it were not for the matter of trying to align with the other UK nations. A levy is clearly a more effective way to do it. It baffles me that some people are arguing that we need more rapid progress on the remediation programme but that we do not want the money from a levy in order to pay for it. Remediation is the responsibility of the industry, and it has a responsibility to pay for it; a levy is a mechanism to ensure that that happens. We undoubtedly need to respond to the housing emergency. Michael Marra: Will Patrick Harvie give way?”
“I will begin with a wee reminder of why the bill is necessary. It is necessary to ensure that the house-building industry collectively puts right the failures for which it is collectively responsible, because it cannot be relied on to do so itself. It would be fundamentally unjust if clearing up the failures of the house- building industry fell solely to the public purse. Are there options for doing that other than through a levy? It might be satisfying—I would certainly find it satisfying—if we could go after the specific developers who have caused the most problems, but we all know that that is not realistic, because the most irresponsible of them will be long gone.”
“He has spoken no words at all on the scale of the housing emergency in Scotland, and there has been no recognition that any further intervention in the housing market has to be on the basis of that context, which we must address appropriately. Little should be said about Patrick Harvie’s parallel universe, in which none of this is happening at all, but the minister should be able to bring forward a cogent analysis of the impact that the bill might have. However, I am afraid that he has not proceeded on that basis.”
“I will briefly express a little surprise, if that is not too strong a word, at the number of members who seem to accept the talking points of the construction industry’s lobbying as though they were the unquestionable truth. The house-building industry has a long history of treating every increase in taxation, regulation or building standards as though it will be the end of that industry; however, it never plays out in that way. The minister could have done a slightly stronger job of defending the principle of his bill during stage 2, and I hope that he will not accept too many amendments at stage 3. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I invite Michael Marra to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 6. Michael Marra: At the outset, I am disappointed that the minister has not recognised the context in which we address the bill.”
“The Presiding Officer: I call Stephen Kerr to speak to amendment 248 and the other amendments in the group.”
“[Made a request to intervene.] Murdo Fraser: I am just about to close, so I will not take the intervention, if Mr Harvie will forgive me. I want suicide prevention to be absolutely central to what we are doing here, so I would like to see it addressed in the bill. I will speak briefly to the other amendments in the group. My colleague Stephen Kerr’s amendment 248 covers similar territory, but goes further than my amendment, in that it seeks to create offences. I am happy to support it if my amendment does not succeed. Liam McArthur’s amendments 52 and 71 would create new offences and penalties and would provide for those to be made in regulations. I would be happy to support them if my amendment does not succeed. I move amendment 247.”
“Is it possible, though, that some of the amendments in this group—lodged out of an understandable desire to prevent issues being raised inappropriately—could have the unintended consequence of preventing and inhibiting appropriate discussion by doctors who would be exercising their skilled professional judgment? Bob Doris: The amendments are not perfect, but not passing an amendment that prohibits proactively raising assisted dying is also a flaw in the legislation. There we are: we pay our money, we make our choice. Raising assisted dying is not a neutral act, and I will vote for one of the amendments that makes clear the general inappropriateness of raising assisted dying as a treatment option.”
“I recognise that this is perhaps one of the most emotional questions that we will discuss in all of the amendments. Most of us will never have to have the conversation that doctors have to have with people every day, in which they inform them that their condition is terminal and discuss what they can expect in relation to symptoms, life expectancy or the distress that they might experience as a result of treatment. None of us will have to do that, and we want to be able to trust that doctors would do so with sensitivity and professional judgment.”
“Somebody could have a terminal condition and be at the end of their life but have a good quality of life or have that possibility. We need to ask ourselves whether we think that it is appropriate in those circumstances. I draw members’ attention to both the New Zealand legislation and the Australian Capital Territory legislation, which provide similar conditions. In both sets of legislation, there are additional qualifications in relation to whether someone’s condition could be improved by treatment and whether they are approaching the end of life; those qualifications are both present in the way that that legislation is set out. It is important that, when we make such international comparisons, we are clear about what they involve.”
“I wonder whether Daniel Johnson can tell us a little bit more about his reasoning for choosing the following form of words in amendment 1: “that treatment that can relieve or improve this condition … is no longer providing relief or improvement”. It seems to me that that implies that a treatment that could theoretically provide even the most marginal, barely registrable improvement would rule out the individual being able to make their own choice. Surely it is for the individual to decide whether a treatment provides sufficient improvement for them to change their mind. Daniel Johnson: The member makes a fair point, but I would also argue that, without that, if there is the possibility of a treatment that would improve the person’s condition, would we want to allow them to proceed?”
“We have to start moving at speed and take full accountability for missed targets and delayed policies. The Scottish Government needs to be held to account for delivery. For example—I am surprised that nobody has mentioned this yet, but maybe it will be in Douglas Lumsden’s final speech—”
“17:00 Sarah Boyack: As we close the debate, it is clear that the climate change plan must contain ambition, but that it also needs to be delivered. I got that message across our committees: where we can find agreement across the parties, it is agreement that we need action. The fact that we are debating the plan at the end of the session is a great pity, because a lot of the people who have debated it are leaving Parliament. There urgently needs to be a recommendation for the next Parliament to debate the final plan and talk about how it can be implemented. Nine out of our 13 annual targets were missed. That is not just a failure of targets—it is a warning that we need to do better. Lessons need to be learned, because as 2030 approaches, the window for action is narrowing.”
“That is supported even by some in the SNP who are apparently unaware that the approval of Rosebank was already thrown out of court because its emissions would have been dramatically higher than was previously acknowledged. The Government must significantly strengthen the draft climate change plan and it must be put under consistent pressure in the next parliamentary session to act with ambition. The political right cannot be trusted to bring that pressure—it will do the opposite. If the Government feels that it is under pressure only from those who want to drop climate action and water down policy, it will continue to drift. That is why it must be under pressure from a strong voice in Parliament calling for climate action and showing how it can build a fairer, more equal and healthier Scotland. The Scottish Greens will be that voice.”
“In the past weeks, we have finally seen the UK Government’s national security assessment of ecosystem collapse and biodiversity loss. Never mind the long-term catastrophic risks; the assessment shows that, even in the short term, ecosystem collapse and biodiversity loss could cost 12 per cent of gross domestic product as soon as 2030. Even the previous partial consensus has now broken down, and, although most of the public still want climate action, the parties on the right have given up on any credible climate policy and are talking of repealing the legislation. They have spent half their time in today’s debate demanding more fossil fuels.”
“There is simply no route to net zero without an ambitious programme to get Scotland off fossil fuels. If we did not understand the wider benefits of doing that before, the current spike in oil and gas prices caused by yet another illegal war should make it abundantly clear. Many people talk about a high electricity price as an excuse. A high electricity price is a political choice, and it would be made much worse with the wildly expensive option of nuclear energy. Renewable electricity is the cheapest to generate, and it is only the increasingly perverse UK Government regulation of energy prices that fails to pass on that low price to bill payers. Those who are concerned about the cost rarely acknowledge the cost of inaction.”
“I can understand why the Government chose to reject the advice on agriculture in the face of opportunistic opposition by those who were determined to misrepresent the issues. However, in truth, it was another missed opportunity—a missed opportunity to invest in a new and better food system and a new and better sustainable future for rural communities. The Government has been commended for its previous heat in buildings programme, but that has been filleted. The proposed heat in buildings bill that was produced has been delayed until the next parliamentary session, with the contents stripped out of it. The Government has not only delayed and weakened the bill but allowed the number of homes supported by Scottish Government-funded programmes to absolutely fall off a cliff in the past couple of years.”
“They have a role to play, of course, but replacing a fossil fuel car-dominated transport system with an electric car-dominated transport system will be both a failure and a missed opportunity to create a safer, healthier and fairer Scotland, which can be achieved through demand reduction and a shift to cheap, reliable public transport and safe active travel. The levels of road traffic reduction that are now being proposed are far lower than the ambition that previously existed, but, without a proper plan for modal shift and demand management, even those very low targets might be missed. Fiona Hyslop: Will Patrick Harvie give way? Patrick Harvie: I am afraid that I cannot, given the time that I have.”