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 4 of 11.
“We have also had the testimony of people such as me and hundreds of others across Scotland who have rehomed greyhounds and seen the long-term impact of injury and trauma on those dogs. It is fair to say, on the issue of licensed or unlicensed tracks, that the committee had no evidence to show that the inherent risk of racing greyhounds at an unlicensed track was lower than that of racing a dog at a licensed track. It makes no difference to the dog who the owner of a greyhound racing track is. The laws of physics do not magically change if the dog races at a track at Thornton, Newcastle or anywhere else. The evidence is the evidence, and the minister pointed to the scientific studies that show the impact on the dogs and how it results in injury and death.”
“I thank other members who have not been able to speak but who are deeply passionate about the issue, have engaged with the evidence—unfortunately, it appears that Mr Russell has not done so—and have concluded that we absolutely need to ban greyhound racing. Their personal support for me and for the work that my team and I have done on the bill has been superb over the past few years. I am saddened that some members still feel that there is insufficient evidence. I am absolutely dripping in evidence—evidence that has come to the committee and to the Parliament over years and years, including from the industry itself. The saddening figures that come out every year detailing the injuries and deaths represent real dogs. It is incredibly sad to see that evidence coming in.”
“The petition to ban the activity was the most- signed petition in the Scottish Parliament’s history. I commit to working with Mark Ruskell and the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee on the bill, to ensure that it addresses the inherent welfare risks that are associated with running dogs at speed on oval tracks. 16:52 Mark Ruskell: I thank all members for their wide-ranging contributions. I note the contributions from Mr Carson, who has spent quite a lot of the debate bolstering what was a minority view in the committee, rather than the view of the majority of committee members, who accept that there is an evidence base to push ahead with a ban. I thank all the members who have spoken in favour of the ban and my bill—Gillian Mackay, Christine Grahame, John Mason, Rona Mackay and Maggie Chapman.”
“We do not expect major rehoming issues—a concern that was also raised—to arise in Scotland as a consequence of the bill. I note that the Dogs Trust and the Scottish SPCA have supported the bill. We will continue to engage with rehoming charities. We will monitor the situation closely and offer support where it may be required. I emphasise that the Government’s position on the bill relates solely to the specific welfare concerns that were raised, based on the evidence that was presented regarding racing greyhounds on oval tracks. It should not be interpreted as indicating a wider position on other animal-related sports, as was mentioned by someone else. For each track, there will be separate circumstances, a separate regulatory framework and a separate evidence base to consider. I note that there is huge public support for the bill.”
“Jim Fairlie: I will not put thoughts in the minds of other members, as they are more than capable of making those points for themselves, but I understand the point that Mr Harvie is trying to make. I will go back to the Thornton track, because I want to put it on the record that we absolutely understand and respect the social value that Thornton provided to a small community, and we recognise that those who attended to race their dogs will be disappointed that we are supporting the bill’s principles. However, a study by the University of Technology Sydney says: “The low number of spectators attending race meets does not warrant or justify the continued usage of oval- shaped tracks.” The welfare of Scotland’s animals must be protected, and the bill will do that.”
“Jim Fairlie: Mr Carson is sitting there and chuntering away; he talks about there being only an oval track. I do not know where members are on this, because Davy Russell, Rhoda Grant and Jamie Halcro Johnston have all said that no racing is happening in Scotland, but there is a track in Scotland. It is in Thornton, and it still has the ability, with an oval track, to race greyhounds. Patrick Harvie: I wonder whether the minister finds it as difficult as I do to understand the line of argument that this particular form of racing is not happening. Does he share my cynicism that, had the bill been introduced a few years ago, the very same members who are making that argument would be telling us that we have no business shutting down an economically viable business? They would be using a different argument to achieve the same effect.”
“In particular, we are not convinced that such a ban is a proportionate and fair response to the animal welfare concerns”.—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 22 May 2024; c 4.] When he made that statement, was the minister aware of any racing of greyhounds in Scotland other than on ovals? Jim Fairlie: We have narrated that so many times that I am beginning to get dizzy. Finlay Carson: I just want a straight answer. Jim Fairlie: In the initial committee session that I attended, we were talking about a bill with a much broader scope. Mr Ruskell then brought back the bill that we have in front of us. The Government has decided to support this bill on the basis that it focuses on oval designs. Finlay Carson: That is not true. That is not accurate. The Deputy Presiding Officer : Mr Carson.”
“The Government supports the principles of the bill because it is targeted—it is a proportionate response to a specific welfare risk that is associated with tracks of an oval design. Licensing can undoubtedly improve standards. It can bring transparency and ensure accountability, but it would not remove the welfare risks that are inherent in racing greyhounds on tracks of an oval design. In its current form, the bill would address those risks. Finlay Carson: I will go back to the point about what is missing here. We do not think that the bill will address Mark Ruskell’s concerns. The minister said: “at this time the Scottish Government is not persuaded of the need to ban greyhound racing in Scotland.”
“We are looking at the regulation of canine fertility clinic activities. We are looking at licensing for dog-related activities such as dog walking and boarding. I understand that people are saying that all that should be in one piece of legislation, but right now we do not have the ability to do that. The legislation that we are putting in place demonstrates that the Government takes animal welfare seriously. Going back to the subject of the bill that we have in front of us, I continue to believe that the bill’s stated aim is to address the inherent welfare risks that are associated with running dogs at speed on oval tracks—risks that, even with good practice, cannot be eliminated entirely, and which licensing could not eliminate.”
“There is an acceptance that the bill is so narrow that it addresses a problem that we all recognise does not exist. Rather than legislation, I would like to see a commitment from the Scottish Government to investing in the proper policing and enforcement of animal welfare cases, whether they arise in the course of racing or any other activity. 16:47 Jim Fairlie: I thank all members for their contributions to the debate. I am glad that Rhoda Grant reminded herself of the enormous amount of work that Christine Grahame did on her Welfare of Dogs (Scotland) Bill. Our officials are working with Christine Grahame on the code of practice. I will mention some of the other things that the Scottish Government is doing on animal welfare. We were involved in the UK bill to control the import of dogs, cats and ferrets.”
“Maggie Chapman’s rhetoric around the torture of animals for the entertainment of humans was perhaps unfortunate, but it maybe highlighted where we are coming from. I will not ask, because I do not have time to take the intervention, but I am concerned about where Maggie Chapman might want such bans to end. Davy Russell’s approach was very combative and talked about priorities with which I agree, but I think that Mr Ruskell’s bill has the best intentions, rather than just being about highlighting and showboating. I recognise that I do not have a lot of time left, but I believe that there is a wide recognition of what the bill is attempting to achieve. However, it is using greyhound raising as a proxy for wider dog welfare issues.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Jamie Halcro Johnston: I am sorry, but I do not have time. My colleague Fin Carson, speaking on behalf of the committee, highlighted that the committee did not agree on the need for the bill. Tim Eagle highlighted the recognition of some stakeholders’ belief that regulation would be more effective for the welfare issues that have been raised. Like all of us, the minister recognises the value of dogs. I am very much with him on missing having a dog; I had a Labrador, so there is no chance of a dog like that being raced any time soon. However, I think that we all recognise the affection that people have for their dogs. Rhoda Grant asked whether the bill was a priority given that, because of the lack of activity in Scotland, it would change nothing.”
“It could have restricted the tax breaks so that companies using tax havens do not qualify—it has not done that. It could have ensured that companies that pay poverty wages do not qualify—it has not done that. The Scottish Government has attached those conditions to other policies after persistent pressure from the Greens, and, in committee, the minister was unable to explain why they have not been applied here. For those reasons, the Greens will oppose the measure. 21:58”
“I will be brief. I know that the SSI will pass, but the Scottish Greens will oppose it, for many of the same reasons that we oppose a similar measure relating to freeports. Freeports and investment zones are both rooted in the discredited idea that tax breaks and deregulation will be good for the economy and therefore good for society. They will certainly be good for the vested interests involved, but it is those vested interests that will hang on to that benefit. In addition, there is at least as much evidence that those schemes displace economic activity as there is that they generate anything additional. Even once the Scottish National Party has decided to accept the offer of modern variants of discredited 1980s economic policy, it could have attached conditions.”
“We can all unite in opposition to the illegal war against Ukraine and to the operation of the shadow fleet or anything else that funds Putin’s war machine. However, none of us could credibly suggest that, in this matter, the Trump regime is motivated by a deep commitment to international law. Surely the First Minister will agree that, basically, the Trump regime has shown contempt for international law and the Scottish courts. The First Minister: I assure Patrick Harvie that, in every step of the Government’s actions and the actions of the Lord Advocate, the assertion of the rule of law, the scope and requirements of the jurisdiction of Scotland, and the protection of the human rights of individuals have been the central considerations that have been applied.”
“We are in the process of delivering the biggest uplift in culture and arts funding in the history of devolution, outwith the Covid period. I am trying to do that as quickly as possible, and we are 70 per cent of the way there. The national performing companies understand that my thinking in terms of the last 30 per cent is very much focused on them in the years ahead. I agree that they would wish to have as much clarity about that as possible, and that is what I want to give them. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Rachael Hamilton for question 5.”
“It is not just that the companies are expected to operate on budgets that are equivalent to what they received 15 years ago; it is also the fact that they are not being given clarity by the Scottish Government. It is simply too vague to say that they might expect something in future years. Does the cabinet secretary understand that the vagueness will force those companies to make urgent decisions that will see Scotland lose some of its cultural infrastructure? Will he please offer them some concrete clarity about the funding trajectory that they can rely on in the immediate term? Angus Robertson: I can give Mr Harvie that assurance. Those conversations have already been had with the national performing companies.”
“She should be very proud that, during that time, she introduced one of Scottish Labour’s flagship policies, which was the free bus pass for people over 60 and disabled people. It is safe to say that Scottish Labour is proud to have had Sarah Boyack on our benches, whether in government or in opposition. I hope that, across the chamber, we can agree that the Parliament has benefited greatly from her ability to work cross-party with determination and a can-do attitude. [Applause.] This is an important bill. Sarah Boyack has made important contributions on it in the chamber, and it will be unfortunate if it falls tonight. The important message is that this work must go on. 15:26”
“I am aware of the time, so, in my remaining minutes, I will turn to the member in charge of the bill, Sarah Boyack, to say thank you from Scottish Labour. Members will know that she will be standing down at the next election. I thank her not just for her work on the bill but for her contribution to the Parliament over the many years that she has been here. From what we have heard today, colleagues agree with that sentiment, and there have been many kind words for Sarah Boyack in their contributions. Sarah Boyack was elected to the new Scottish Parliament in 1999. She was Minister for Transport and the Environment in the Scottish Executive and went on to be Minister for Transport and Planning.”
“Carol Mochan: The critical point is that Sarah Boyack’s bill could give us the opportunity to action something—there has been very little action to date. We are talking about the fact that the policy landscape is incoherent. Sarah Boyack’s bill brought focus to the committee’s discussion on the issue. If she worked with the Government, we could reach a focused outcome. The member is willing to work with the Government. She was disappointed about the lack of support for her bill but, when the Government said that it would lodge a similar bill, she could see that some joint work could be done. We can understand why she is so disappointed by the committee not agreeing to support her bill at stage 1 and by the fact that the Government will not be supporting the bill or even working with her to support it at decision time today.”
“I think that everyone agrees that setting out the definitions of wellbeing and sustainable development in legislation would not only improve policy coherence and public body guidance, but provide the structure and accountability that would help Scotland to contribute to the achieving of the UN sustainable development goals. Bob Doris: Does the member recognise that the power of the national performance framework is set out in statute under the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015? Creating new legislation that would provide a different set of powers with other definitions of sustainability and wellbeing could lead to a lack of policy coherence. Therefore, does the member agree that including new definitions in a revised community empowerment act might be the way to go, once the NPF has been revised?”
“Every member agrees that Sarah Boyack has been consistent in her approach, from the very early days following her election to the Parliament. Like others, I thank my Social Justice and Social Security Committee colleagues, who I am sure will allow me to say that we appreciated Sarah Boyack’s work and her passion for the bill. I thank the clerks and the witnesses who put in the hours and allowed us to understand and scrutinise the bill when it was presented to the committee. As I set out in my opening remarks, Scottish Labour agrees with the general principles of the bill and will be supporting it at decision time. During the debate, we wanted to hear whether we could achieve some agreement to allow the bill to be passed at stage 1.”
“The Government’s choice not to seek a compromise so that the bill could go forward stands in stark contrast to its repeated willingness over the years to place other duties on public bodies that directly conflict with sustainability and wellbeing. In closing, I once again recognise the work that Sarah Boyack has done and I commend the bill. The Greens will be voting for it at decision time. 15:21 Carol Mochan: In closing for Labour, I thank members for an important and interesting debate. There is real enthusiasm across the chamber for the work that Sarah Boyack has undertaken, which I thank her for. That enthusiasm is why I am confused as to why we cannot get the bill over the line at stage 1, as Patrick Harvie has mentioned.”
“Even if the Scottish Government is right that the NPF can include those principles, the NPF is a statement of current Government policy that lacks key features. It does not bind any future Government in the way that legislation can and it does not bring an impartial, independent challenge in the way that a commissioner can. Even if the Parliament decided, in the fullness of time, that the NPF review was the better approach and that I am wrong, it would at least be making the decision in a fully informed way, with both options having been fully fleshed out. It would be far better to do that than to kill off the bill at decision time. Sarah Boyack’s proposal should proceed, even if there could be amendments at stage 2 to make the changes that I have suggested. I find the Government’s reasons for blocking the bill unconvincing at best.”
“The point is that, for Parliament to be able to reach a genuine, fully informed judgment on that question, we should be able to consider the option of a commissioner alongside the Government’s preferred alternative of the NPF review, with both those options fully formed. If the bill were to pass at stage 1, and we simply amended the commencement date for the commissioner provisions until the NPF review had been progressed and we could see the detail, Parliament would be in a stronger position to make that judgment properly. That approach would be consistent with the agreed principles on the creation of new bodies. Personally, I still take the view that the option of a commissioner would be the most effective approach. It would lock in the long-term vision of sustainability in the interests of future generations.”
“As for the commissioner proposal, Sarah Boyack has recognised the new context of the Parliament’s changed approach to the general issue of the landscape of commissioners and Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body-supported bodies. That is a serious issue, and I agree that the principles that we have all agreed ought to be applied. However, has the last resort test been met on this occasion? Maybe not. There are alternative ways in which the policy objectives might be met, but in evidence to the committee, a very strong case was made that having a commissioner would be the most effective way of meeting those objectives.”
“When we sat down to negotiate the Bute house agreement, we said that we would keep the issue open in the hope that we might reach agreement as the issue developed. I regret that that opportunity was ended when the SNP broke that agreement, but there was still an opportunity for the Government to find a way to make progress, even if it meant reaching a compromise with the member behind the bill, instead of acting as a block. The Government has chosen not to do that. That stands in contrast to the SNP having never been reluctant to impose new statutory duties on public bodies to prioritise economic growth, and I can therefore see no principled reason for the Government not to support duties regarding sustainable development. Bob Doris: Will the member give way? Patrick Harvie: I am afraid that I do not have time.”
“I congratulate and thank Sarah Boyack for her work on the bill. I regret that today looks like it will be a missed opportunity. We need to begin with a recognition that long-term thinking is not, in fact, happening. We are not collectively taking into account the interests of future generations in our decision making in the way that we should. Right- wing opposition to sustainable development and wellbeing economics is not anything new. It is sad that the minister is relying on support from the Conservatives’ side of the chamber to find a majority to block the bill. Differences between the Green and SNP positions are not news, either. The Green manifesto supported the creation of a future generations commissioner, and the SNP manifesto did not.”
“I also welcome the additional support for workers affected by the closure of Mossmorran, and the increased investment in breakfast clubs and in just transition. I do not have time to go into the number of other changes that we have argued for, and will continue to argue for, whether on expanding free public transport or improvements to childcare. However, I make the case that Greens have a strong track record of trying to achieve positive change by making workable and funded proposals to Government. The budget process would work much better if every political party was willing to do that instead of only demanding more spending and never saying how it is to be paid for. 16:45”
“Let us contrast the announcement today, finally, of a warm homes plan by the UK Government with the scrapping of the equivalent measure—the proposed heat in buildings bill—by the Scottish Government, which we will now not see. We need to recognise that we have to look at fiscal sustainability across the piece, rather than silo by silo. After today’s debate, we will move on to the more party-political debates on the budget. I recognise that two measures that the Greens have argued for—the mansion tax and the private jet tax—are important but are limited in scale. However, if there is to be further progress towards a more progressive and more equal society, it is important that we make it clear to the public that we will target the super-rich first in order to justify the case for building that society.”
“It is clear that the Government still believes in the same thing—raising a bit more revenue through tax policy in order to spend a bit more. We need to be clear that the difference is important and has been significant, but it is not transformational and is not yet at the level to meet all the challenges that have been raised by all the individual committees. On child poverty, I welcome the proposed improvements in the Scottish child payment for the youngest children, but they are not in place yet. Those have been welcomed, but with a caveat, by some of the stakeholder organisations. On climate, I say very clearly that, even if the budget funds the Government’s current climate plan, that only means that it funds a slowdown on climate.”
“This debate might not be where the budget drama plays out—if there is to be any of that this year—but it brings a bit more light rather than the heat of party-political positioning, and I think that it shows some of the nuance that is understood across all portfolios. On whether particular budgets are sustainable, I recognise that we need to look at that issue in the round, rather than in silos. It is not reasonable to ask whether social security spending, for example, is sustainable without asking what we are trying to achieve and how we are going to pay for it. I strongly believe in raising a bit more revenue through tax policy in order to be able to fund things such as the Scottish child payment and protect other spending, such as on social security or public services.”
“I welcome the chance to take part in the debate, having just recently rejoined the Finance and Public Administration Committee. Ross Greer decided not only to give up speaking in this debate but to give up his place on the Finance and Administration Committee in my favour, if I can call it that. Obviously, those decisions are now well above my pay grade, I am very happy to say, and I am sure that he is never wrong in those judgments. However, I will be a tiny bit more glass-half-full about the debate, and I acknowledge the work that all the committees have done on their budget scrutiny.”
“Kate Forbes: The First Minister has been very robust over the weekend in particular, and he was robust again last night in expressing very clearly his view that the future of Greenland is for the people of Greenland to determine. The First Minister’s primary interest is in respecting the rule- based international system and protecting Scottish interests. In relation to the first question that I was asked, which was largely about export, this is about how to protect Scottish jobs and interests and how to protect communities across Scotland who are at risk right now.”
“This goes far beyond export interests. The latest economic threat from Trump follows on from his attacks on the sovereignty of Greenland, his unilateral military action against Venezuela, his support for genocide in Palestine, his attempts to wreck international climate efforts and the brutal violence of his regime against his own citizens. Surely it is clear that democratic countries can no longer treat this lawless US President as a security partner. Does the Government agree that, in that context, a formal visit by the UK’s head of state would only feed Trump’s ego and would continue a failed policy of appeasement against this extremist, and that the visit should be cancelled? The Presiding Officer: Please answer on the substantive question, Deputy First Minister.”
“Football will not be a game for everyone if we allow a market that is based on price gouging in the extreme. There is action on that in the bill; perhaps we can go further. In my closing speech, I will address some of the wider issues relating to the affordability of these events, which we can tackle outside the formal context of the bill. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to the open debate. 16:22”
“The aspects of the bill that I have mentioned should allow us to effectively monitor the human rights impact of the legislation and the balance of enforcing powers between the police and council officers. As Neil Bibby alluded to, football should not be seen as belonging to corporate sponsors and big business interests; it should belong to its fans. Beyond the civil rights protections, there is the issue of affordability. There are still concerns about the affordability of tickets and the proportion of tickets being allocated for corporate sponsors, due to their commercial interests, but the bill’s restrictions on ticket touting are legitimate. We have already seen world cup tickets being resold at hundreds or even thousands of times their initial sale prices.”
“The bill sets out protections for large corporate sponsors, and it has been acknowledged that that is a requirement in order for UEFA to hold its event here. However, it is hugely important that civil liberties—rather than just corporate interests—are protected, and that any restrictions are targeted at commercial activity, not at legitimate protest by citizens. I recognise that the minister, in answering that challenge, agreed with that principle and I hope that we will pay attention to that as the event unfolds. I am pleased that council enforcement officers will be able to enter residences only by permission or with a warrant granted by a sheriff. The most recent European championship was held in very different circumstances.”
“I was pleased that the bill, as introduced, incorporated in advance some of the amendments that my colleague Ross Greer moved during the passage of the UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Act 2020, which sought to achieve more clarity around the use of enforcement powers, and to address the concerns about trading breaches in event zones. I do not have great concerns at the moment about how those enforcement powers are framed in the bill, but it will be important that MSPs and others are vigilant about how they are used in practice. That is why it is good that the bill also includes a requirement for the Government to report on the operation and effectiveness of the act after the games have taken place.”
“I, too, thank the minister for advance engagement on the bill, and I also thank the clerks and witnesses who supported the work of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee. My fellow members of that committee are probably fairly familiar with the slightly glazed expression that comes over my face when the pre-meeting football banter begins just before 8.30 every Thursday morning, so I am sure that they understand precisely the level of enthusiasm that I bring to this afternoon’s debate. The bill is a largely technical set of measures relating to the regulation of ticket sales, ticket touting and street trading during the event. On most of that technical content, there is a fairly reasonable degree of consensus across the chamber.”
“Although there is a statutory footing associated with those plans, there are other ways in which individual needs can be met in schools. It is important to say that we have seen an increase in the number of individual support plans. I hope that Mr Harvie takes some comfort from the fact that the consultation on the co-ordinated support plans will launch in February. We will publish the updated results over the summer, which will take on board the points that he has made today. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Willie Rennie, who is joining us remotely.”
“The progress and improved attainment that we see are to be welcomed. Mr Harvie also spoke about solutions. I do not want to prejudge the outcome of the review that is being led by Janie McManus, our professional adviser, but I encourage him and colleagues in his party to engage with Ms McManus on a solution- orientated focus, which I very much expect to see. We need to be mindful that we have had a number of reviews in the ASN space. A key ask from the Opposition at the round table last year was that we use the learning from those reviews to inform what comes next, so that learning will not be lost. Mr Harvie makes a key ask in relation to co- ordinated support plans, which his colleague Ross Greer has been pursuing with me for the best part of the past three years. I share his interest in that regard.”
“I think that it is worth congratulating teachers and young people on the improvements in literacy and numeracy that the cabinet secretary mentioned in her statement, which I am sure we all welcome. The cabinet secretary acknowledges the consensus that exists on the need to have a further review, but we all want that review to be about solutions rather than just a restatement of the problem. Will the cabinet secretary commit that the review will consider one solution, which is removal of the overly restrictive statutory criteria for co-ordinated support plans? By removing those from legislation, we could help to ensure that more young people can access the support that they need. Jenny Gilruth: I join Mr Harvie in congratulating our pupils on their achievements, particularly those pupils with an identified additional support need.”
“The Tory plan gives high earners the biggest tax cuts and pays for it all by slashing the public services that are most relied on by the least wealthy. That is no surprise from the Conservatives—it is their natural instinct—but it would be bad for our society and bad for our economy, and it would be a fundamentally uncivilised policy. 15:13”
“I am sure that that little bit of extra cash would be welcome to people on those incomes and that, if they were very lucky, their landlord would not just hike the rent and take it straight back off them again. However, let us look at someone on twice that income: £50,000. By my calculation, they would save something like £440 a year, and Craig Hoy suggests that that figure could be up to more than £600 a year. That same £600-a-year saving would go to people on 60, 80 or 100 grand a year under the plan. For someone on such high incomes, 400 quid or 600 quid a year is nothing. They would not even notice the difference. A case can be made for cutting income tax further for low earners and for people on middle incomes, but it can be made only if we ensure that the high earners and the wealth owners are the ones paying for it.”
“Scrapping that would save £768 million, leaving only a third of a billion of other cuts still to find, and I am sure that the Tories think that leaving people at the mercy of unregulated private landlords would be a reasonable alternative to delivering affordable housing. However, it is not just the cuts that the Tory plan would rely on that nauseate me. My issue is also about who gets the benefit. From the changes that are set out in the motion alone, we can see that the plan would benefit a young full-time worker on the minimum wage by something like £40 a year. Someone on a wage that is closer to an average income of £25,000 might save something like £100 a year.”
“That is equivalent to the budget of the entire rural affairs, land reform and islands portfolio going in a oner. If the Tories do not want to scrap that, they might say that they prefer cuts to social security, so they could do away with the Scottish child payment—an internationally recognised initiative that is the single most successful measure that we have for cutting child poverty. However, no—sorry, but that would not be enough. It would not even meet half the cost of the Tory black hole. How about cutting the affordable housing supply programme? That would get us closer.”
“Although the SNP has relied too much, to my liking, on the argument that most people pay a bit less tax—which I think implies an acceptance of the right-wing framing of tax being a bad thing— it has continued to ensure that Scotland’s income tax system follows a progressive direction, with those who can afford to pay more doing so, because the alternative is cuts to services that fall heaviest on those who have the least. In the 2025-26 budget, Scotland’s tax changes generated around £1.7 billion extra for public services, so Scottish tax policy unquestionably protects the services that are needed by those who do not enjoy high incomes and makes possible groundbreaking initiatives such as the Scottish child payment. Let us compare all of that with the Tory plan for £1.1 billion in tax cuts.”
“I always welcome the chance to debate the tax system and how to make it fairer, and I am proud of the Green record in achieving that. Our 2016 manifesto proposals became the basis of the five-band income tax system that Scotland adopted. We set the tipping point at which people should start paying a little more tax at roughly the average full- time salary, largely because we thought that people would see that as fair. The system has been tweaked a bit since then, but the six-band system that is now in place continues the same direction of travel, even if we think that it could go further.”
“That is for one swimming pool. As other members have mentioned, the number of pools around the country that are of an age is a reminder to us that previous generations of politicians did raise the money and made investments on a large scale. If we take seriously the value that swimming and the pools and facilities that we are talking about have for our communities, we need to be willing to do the same. I would like to say with confidence—I hope that Mr Carlaw agrees—that nobody will come to the Parliament today to ask for that investment and then return tomorrow to ask for £1 billion in tax cuts. 16:58”