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 5 of 11.
“There had been investment throughout the 2010s, but, as a result of a range of issues—not just the age of the building, but the discovery of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, asbestos and other issues—the facility has been lost. Again, the community has been working hard to persuade the local authority to take it on and develop a business case to bring it back to life. The Whitehill facility illustrates the scale of what we are talking about and the scale of the investment that is required. Even the deep retrofit that would be required to bring Whitehill pool back to life and allow it to provide the service that it previously provided to the Dennistoun community would cost more than £30 million. A new build, which some are saying would be the preferable option, would cost only slightly more than that, at £32.5 million.”
“If we are going to see any such assets brought back to life by communities, they, as well as local authorities, need to have the resources to invest. Paul Sweeney: rose— Patrick Harvie: I am afraid that I do not have time to take an intervention. I hear the call for more local authority investment, but investment needs to go beyond local authorities and into organisations that have taken on community ownership and the responsibility to bring lost assets back to life. In the case of Whitehill, the facility was lost much more recently. As late as 2018-19, there was significant investment to bring the ageing building up to date.”
“Since then, the community, driven by its passion for what could be brought back to life, has, in the voluntary and non- profit sector, independently attempted to bring not just the building but all the services that it brought together back to life. The community understands that, as other members have said, swimming pools are more than just swimming pools; they are community hubs and they can unite people across different demographics, foster a local identity, improve life skills and encourage young people to adopt healthy lifestyles. They can contribute to the local economy, too, by attracting and retaining people in the local community, as well as by attracting events. However, the community recognises that it does not have the resources that a local council has available to invest in the way that is required.”
“I thank the committee for the work that it has done and, of course, the petitioners for raising the issue. I will mention two particular pools and two particular communities in order to illustrate two specific points in the limited time that I have available. Those pools are in Govanhill, which is in the south side of Glasgow, and in Whitehill, Dennistoun, which is in the east end of Glasgow. Both pools have closed already—those are both communities that have lost their pools. In Govanhill’s case, 25 or so years ago, the council decided to close the pool despite the community’s valiant efforts to save it.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what criteria will be used to evaluate its pilot programme for walk-in GP clinics, including whether stakeholders representing GPs and other health professionals will have been involved in defining these criteria. (S6O-05306)”
“We now have policy by drip feed from a Government that is on life support, relying on legacy support and limping on while the future policy framework remains undefined, underfunded and unclear. That is not leadership. The Scottish Conservatives, including me, believe that farming deserves better rural support. It deserves multi-annual funding, real clarity, respect for those who work the land and even really radical stuff such as support for food production. Perhaps the SNP should stop hiding behind green labels and deliver the support it promised, or step aside and let those who value food—Scotland’s rural communities—get on with the real work. 17:40”
“Tim Eagle: The measures might sound green and virtuous but, as NFU Scotland, which is at the heart of agriculture in Scotland, points out, cramming in more EFAs—ecological focus areas— “risks undermining mixed and grass-based systems” as well as hurting small herds and crofts and damaging food production and farm viability, not to mention piling on paperwork and inspection burdens. Greening under tier 2 was once sold as a bold, flexible and farmer-friendly way to deliver climate and biodiversity outcomes with multiple options, but the reality is now very different. I still have a nagging doubt that the miserable information technology system that we all know so much about is the real reason for the lack of options that are before us today.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. It may have been my hearing, but I thought that I heard a mental health slur from a member who has just chastised other members about respect to others. Presiding Officer, in your judgment, was that language respectful? The Presiding Officer: As we are having a fairly lively debate this evening, I ask all members to please, at all times, be courteous and respectful in your language and think about how that language may impact others. Tim Eagle: I am happy to discuss that outside the chamber, perhaps. I am not quite sure what I did—[Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us hear the member.”
“Although I agree that lodging an amendment of this kind without taking it through the business bureau is clearly performative and has been done as a wheeze rather than as a serious proposal for a serious debate—”
“We must ensure that we not only do not allow advertising to play a role in a way that none of us would be comfortable with, but that we do not inhibit legitimate debate— nor that we allow the use of material on social media, for example, to influence or put pressure on people to make a decision in either direction. 17:45”
“We considered a range of possible restrictions in the Scottish legislation, and I had similar concerns that some variants of what was being proposed might have been more of an inhibition on the expression of legitimate opinions about assisted dying or, potentially, on research or the provision of factual information. As we go forward, we need to ensure that we pay due attention to both aspects of that concern, either by working with colleagues in the UK Parliament to ensure that the legislation there is in fit shape or by scrutinising Liam McArthur’s bill in this Parliament at stage 3.”
“When we debated the LCM, my additional concern was that we should ensure not only that we are clear that we do not expect and do not want to allow advertising to play a role, but that we do not inadvertently make provisions against advertising that would inhibit the provision of factual information about services or, indeed, arguments about the policy merits of the legislation or how services should be delivered. When we considered the LCM in committee, I asked the cabinet secretary whether it was his expectation that the restrictions that we are talking about would apply to advertising alone, and he agreed.”
“I will be fairly brief in setting out my hope that there is broad consensus on the LCM before us. I would like to hope that, as the cabinet secretary said, regardless of the range of views on the merits of legislation here in the Scottish Parliament or at Westminster, very few people would want advertising to play any role at all in the issue of assisted dying legislation or any equivalent legislation at UK level for England and Wales. As others have said, the issue has been debated in both Parliaments in relation to both pieces of legislation.”
“Neil Gray: As I said, we are still working through and will consider carefully the tribunal ruling and its implication not just for the health service but for wider public bodies as employers. As I said in response to previous questions, our health system is based on the core values of care, compassion, openness, honesty, integrity and respect for everyone, irrespective of their individual identities. Four areas were upheld by the tribunal, which need to be taken seriously, and I will correspond with NHS Fife to hear how it intends to respond to those.”
“Despite the valiant attempts of anti-trans campaigners to claim a win on the issue, the tribunal found that Ms Peggie’s behaviour amounted to harassment of Dr Upton, and it dismissed the vast majority of her claims. Most important, it is the second Scottish employment tribunal in a month to find that employers are not, in fact, required to operate the kind of trans-segregation policies that anti-equality groups are pushing for. Does the Scottish Government agree that the blanket exclusion of trans people from the facilities that they need at work is generally unlawful, and will it therefore make it clear to all public bodies in Scotland that segregating trans people is not supported in law and that their human rights will be defended against the current onslaught?”
“I know that the First Minister is aware of the scale of the housing crisis in Glasgow, which has been exacerbated by the United Kingdom Government’s changes to asylum policy—changes that are harming the lives of asylum seekers and are also harmful to the budgets available for public services. Will the First Minister tell us what urgent action the Scottish Government has taken, since his officials started meeting the local authority, registered social landlords and others to discuss the situation, to ensure that those parties have the resources that they need to deal with this crisis, which is not of their making?”
“As I said in my answer to Mr Sweeney, we will engage with Transport Scotland and the organising company on those issues to ensure that we provide the best possible experience for residents of Glasgow and visitors next year.”
“I recognise Patrick Harvie’s point about ensuring that we evaluate the benefit of the pilot, not just for the games but, more widely, in support of free public transport. Through collaboration between the Scottish National Party and the Greens, we have been able to achieve substantial additional free public transport across Scotland. The situation with regard to the games is slightly different. There are issues about getting to and from locations such as airports and other transport terminals, but the footprint of the games is in a far smaller space within the city of Glasgow. That is not to say that we should not have support for public transport, but the scale will be different.”
“I am grateful for the advance copy of the statement, but, like a couple of members, I was a little surprised that the cabinet secretary did not mention some of the transport issues when he mentioned other matters that are also the responsibility of the organising company. He will be aware that, unlike in 2014, there will be a trial in 2026 of free public transport during the games for a limited number of Glasgow residents. How will the Scottish Government work constructively with Glasgow City Council and Strathclyde Partnership for Transport to evaluate the effectiveness of the pilot so that we can properly understand the value of free public transport, not just during big events such as the games but on an on-going basis? Neil Gray: That is an important area.”
“We review and seek to ensure that our external contractors abide by the provisions of the fair work policy. School Visits (Inclusivity and Accessibility) 2.”
“The fair work first policy encourages businesses that bid for public contracts to commit to adopting the following seven criteria: paying at least the real living wage; providing appropriate channels for effective workers’ voice, such as trade union recognition; investing in workforce development; no inappropriate use of zero-hours contracts; addressing workplace inequalities, including pay and employment gaps for disabled people, racialised minorities, women and workers aged over 50; offering flexible and family-friendly working practices for all workers from day 1 of employment; and opposing the use of fire and rehire practices. It is under that policy that the SPCB has been able to mandate the payment of the real living wage for contracts that are being delivered in the Scottish Parliament.”
“Patrick Harvie: I am glad that the Parliament takes the principle of fair work seriously, but no minister, MSP, clerk, researcher or anybody else would really be able to do their job if it was not for those who clean the building, maintain it to keep it safe or cater for the various other needs that contractors fulfil in the building. I think that we are all aware that not all those people have the same wage protection, security of employment, union rights and so on as other staff members. We will not be a fair work Parliament until that changes. What further steps is the corporate body able to take, or what changes in the law would be required, to allow it to take more steps to achieve the universal application of fair work principles? Jackson Carlaw: Our position is slightly stronger than Mr Harvie suggests.”
“To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what consideration it has given to staff employed within the Parliament as contractors and whether they should have the same employment terms and conditions as corporate and MSP staff. (S6O- 05226) Jackson Carlaw (Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body): The corporate body is not the employer of contractor staff and has limited ability to stipulate specific terms or benefits in contractor employment contracts. The corporate body procurement function adheres to the fair work principles that are set out in the Scottish Government guidance for the public sector on fair work and procurement, which can be found at www.gov.scot.”
“It is not the only option and it may not even be the best option, but the challenge to anyone who does not like what the council is considering is, if not that, then what? The answer needs to address questions about local government funding, the inequality that is facing an urban centre such as Glasgow— The Deputy Presiding Officer: You need to conclude, Mr Harvie. Patrick Harvie: It needs to support the transition to a sustainable transport system that reduces road traffic levels and invests in high- quality public transport and the needs of people and planet. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Harvie. I have indicated the lack of time that we have for the members’ business debate. I need members’ co-operation in order to allow our staff not to have to rush around like mad people in a stressful way.”
“The failure to reform local government taxation is one of the chronic issues that the Parliament has repeatedly refused to resolve, which leaves Glasgow City Council being forced to consider options that probably would not be its first preferences if it had solutions to the wider issues. The Clyde tunnel is nationally important infrastructure, but its specific costs are borne by Glasgow City Council, simply because of the designation of the road, rather than the nature of the infrastructure. Comparable bridges are not funded by local authorities. Does anyone, whether that is Glasgow City Council, my party, or anyone else, think that the proposal is a wonderful thing, to use a phrase from Jackson Carlaw? I do not think that anyone does. It is one option to address legitimate issues.”
“Of course, I make the case that the Greens have done more than any other party in recent years to protect local government funding in many years of budget negotiations, and we have also successfully made the case for new financial powers for councils, some of which are now in place. Is it enough? No, but we are the only party to have made serious progress and to have shown how to fund that fairly from progressive taxation. As we all know, and as has been acknowledged for many years, the specific issue that Glasgow City Council faces is that a great many high-value properties outside the city are generating costs for Glasgow without contributing council tax. That is a historical inequality since the break-up of Strathclyde region.”
“Even if the UK and Scottish Governments and local government all recognise that some kind of change of that kind has to come in time, I think that they all lack the courage to say so. If we make such a change then, of course, border and boundary issues will have to be addressed. I am aware that some areas in East Dunbartonshire, for example, have a residential road that is so close to the boundary with Glasgow that entering Glasgow is the only way for a person to leave their street. Of course, some of those issues will have to be addressed, but they are not insurmountable. As for the local government perspective, I believe that the proposals that are under consideration from Glasgow City Council reflect local government’s position more generally, which is a lack of funding and a lack of power.”
“There are two perspectives through which we can see the issue: one is transport and the other is local government. I will split them up. On transport, whether the Conservatives agree or not, I believe that there is an overwhelming case for a shift towards lower car use and greater investment in, and more availability and affordability of, public transport. Instead of vehicle excise duty being the principle means of raising revenue from road use, we should be shifting towards something that is closer to a polluter-pays principle, whether that is through road user charging or some other form. The UK Government has been praised—or perhaps “has been given a cautious welcome” is the right phrase—for taking some baby steps in this year’s budget to introduce a polluter-pays principle for road use.”
“I congratulate Jackson Carlaw on bringing the motion to the chamber. I am genuinely sorry if he thinks that I was glowering in any way. It was certainly not the intention. It is just my face. If he does not like it, I am sorry, but it is the only one that I have. I have no particular objection to what is written in the motion. Jackson Carlaw makes the point that, if a proposal of this kind was taken forward, it would have a wider regional impact and perhaps even a national impact. It is reasonable for Parliament, as the national forum for debate, to discuss it. I have no objection to that. I have to admit that I expected a little more hyperbole in the speeches. We have not been disappointed, as a little bit of the “war on motorists” rhetoric has come up a couple of times in some of the speeches.”
“There are dozens of side roads that cross the city boundary, so it will cost tens of millions to implement the charge, never mind run it. That is a harsh penalty on the majority of common working people who travel to work in the mornings. It is an expense that will be absorbed by hard-pressed families, because the public transport alternative is not reliable or adequate enough. Ultimately, it will be a quick cash grab—a supertax at the expense of businesses, employers and road users in general. It will affect jobs and local businesses, because people will avoid Glasgow. If the council would like to increase the use of public transport and have fewer people driving into the city, the only route forward would be to make public transport more frequent, reliable, better and faster. 13:09”
“Will the member take an intervention? Davy Russell: Not just now. The Scottish Government abolished that kind of tax on the Erskine bridge, the Forth road bridge and the Skye road bridge. By proposing to introduce a tax on the people of Glasgow, the SNP has, yet again, shown its contempt for them. However, that type of skulduggery is normal for the SNP administration led by Susan Aitken. There has been mention of the crown jewels represented by Glasgow’s iconic buildings. The SNP has mortgaged them all. It has hocked the lot of them, including the city chambers. As if that is not enough, it wants to introduce a tax on vehicles entering the city boundary, which would apply to those based outside the city. It is not a viable solution to congestion, and it victimises the people of Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire and East Renfrewshire.”
“Turning to the subject of the motion that we are debating, we see outright attempts to abolish trans people’s healthcare altogether. I know that the Scottish Government does not intend to support that, but the position now is so severe that, without transformational action, that is what will have happened by default, and the Scottish Government will have allowed it. We must not permit that—not the Government, and not the Parliament. Every MSP has constituents who are waiting for too long, and waiting for us to act. They have a right to expect better. They want to hear from the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health today what is going to happen now to resolve the crisis, and so do I. 18:58”
“She said: “I mostly just don’t want to be potentially harassed at my workplace if this is linked back to me.” That is from someone who worked to provide emergency care during the Covid-19 pandemic to serve her community and her country. We need to recognise the context in which all this is happening. Recent years have seen a continually rising tide of transphobia, generating hostility, fear and prejudice. We see legal demands for segregation. We see flat-out denial of trans and non-binary people’s identities, of their human rights and of their dignity. We see a campaign to stir up and weaponise transphobia— a campaign that is every bit as ugly and toxic as the homophobia of the 1980s and 1990s, and in the early years of the Parliament. That campaign is coming not only from the far right, but from across the political spectrum.”
“I heard from one constituent, who is herself a doctor working in the NHS. She was told that the waiting list was two years long when she joined it, only to be told, as two years passed, that the wait would be another two years. She has now been waiting for six years and fears that she may be waiting for many more. My constituent’s description of desperation in seeking private care—as she described it, “to bridge the gap while waiting”, only to find that the wait would become interminable—was distressing enough to read. What I found even harder to read was her request that I quote from her experience, but not use her name.”
“How must the people who are waiting for year after year after year feel, knowing that such promises were made and that the situation has simply continued to fall apart? Well, many of them have told me how their lives are affected. I have heard from those who have been left with no option but to seek private treatment, including those who have been forced into debt to do so. I have heard from those who have been refused treatment from their GP or who have had to change their GP multiple times. I have heard from those who were offered no support of any kind while waiting, and no clarity at all about how long the wait would be. I have heard from those who suffer the distress of having a complete lack of control over their own lives, not as a result of being trans, but as a result of the indefinite wait for support or treatment.”
“More to the point, only those with the resources to go private will be able to do so, and even then, they will find it next to impossible to get an NHS general practitioner who will accept them and treat them. All that stands in stark contrast to the Scottish Government’s stated commitments. In 2021, it committed to “reform the current model of Gender Identity Services to meet the needs of the community”, bringing the service “within national waiting times standards.” The “NHS gender identity services: strategic action framework 2022-2024”, which promised “transformation” of the service, was published in late 2021 and was due to be implemented between 2022 and 2024. As part of that, a commitment was made to “test new multidisciplinary models for delivery of gender identity healthcare”, among many other improvements.”
“With almost 4,000 people on the waiting list and fewer than 50 first appointments being offered in the course of a year, new patients will be looking at the situation in utter despair. At that rate, it would take 80 years to reach the head of the queue. That is not even the worst estimate—independent research has put the figure far higher and shown that the situation there is by far the worst in any part of the United Kingdom. Whether we measure a theoretical waiting time like that in decades or in centuries, it is hardly helpful. Either way, it is clear that, without transformational change, most people will simply never be seen. They will never even get a first appointment, let alone actually receive the healthcare that they need.”
“The data from Public Health Scotland, which are mentioned in the motion and were published last month, illustrate a wholly unacceptable situation throughout Scotland, but in particular at the Sandyford in Glasgow, where the service is utterly overwhelmed. That is Scotland’s largest gender identity clinic; it is the service for eight health board areas covering almost half the Scottish population. As at March this year, in comparison with the previous year, there were three times as many people on its waiting list who had been there for more than five years. The clinic was offering first appointments to people who had been waiting for six and a half years. A six-and-a-half-year wait for a first appointment is bad enough, but that is not what new patients today are facing.”
“I thank those members who have stayed a little later than expected, as well as all those who signed the motion, allowing us to debate the subject this evening. MSPs from all sides of the chamber raise the issue of waiting times in our national health service regularly. In a search of the Official Report from the past two weeks alone, I saw members rightly expressing concern about failures to meet waiting-time targets of 12 months for some conditions, and 62 days in another case. A member raised the issue of waiting times again at portfolio question time today. There are many examples, and we all understand the impact of the problem on our constituents’ lives and the immense challenges that the NHS faces in addressing it. However, the example that I raise today is extreme.”
“The industry admits that it is “‘considered to be beyond realistic assumptions’” and would require “massive tax breaks.” The industry has a long history of choosing to prioritise its shareholders over its workforce and, certainly, of prioritising profit over planet.”
“None of the other parties has put the blame where it belongs, which is fairly and squarely on the fossil fuel industry itself— those who have extracted not only vast amounts of oil and gas, which they have pumped into the atmosphere, but vast amounts of profit, and who are now happy to put their workforce on the economic scrap heap. I thank the organisation Uplift for the briefing that it circulated. It rightly points out that North Sea developments are made economically viable only “with massive state support” and that the industry’s claim that half of the UK’s oil and gas demands could be met from the North Sea is misleading.”
“The green voting sheet for this afternoon’s debate was not difficult to fill out. Very obviously, we will oppose the motion. The Scottish Conservatives are here to serve the interests of the profit-hungry, climate- wrecking, lethal fossil fuel industry, and they make no attempt to hide it. Equally obviously, we will oppose the SNP’s demands for a massive tax cut for the same lethal fossil fuel industry. Just as obviously, we will oppose Labour’s amendment, which comes on the day of Labour’s capitulation to the fossil fuel industry and its backtracking on its already weak position on new oil and gas. Sarah Boyack started off by blaming others for party political posturing and then indulged in exactly the same thing.”
“He is absolutely right to make the point that, in terms of resilience, we cannot assume to know what the next civil emergency or pandemic will look like. That is why exercise Pegasus, which is a UK-wide test that we have come through, tested our ability to respond to a hypothetical pandemic and tested all the processes. Patrick Harvie is also absolutely right about the equalities and human rights considerations. That is why the population health framework highlights health inequalities. Addressing those health inequalities remains a top priority for the Government, because the evidence is quite clear.”
“In particular, does she acknowledge that poverty and inequality exacerbated the risk that many people faced and would face in future emergencies and that, ultimately, a more equal society would be a more resilient society? Kate Forbes: In response to module 1, which covered the questions around preparedness, we provided the inquiry chair with a progress update in July 2025, which set out the action that had already been taken to deliver the recommendations in module 1. That included work to improve our approach to risk assessment and the findings of a significant horizon scanning project. We will provide the inquiry chair with a further progress update in January 2026, precisely in response to the recommendations of module 1 and to the points that Patrick Harvie has outlined.”
“It has already been remarked that, before the pandemic, all nations of the UK were too reliant on assumptions that preparedness planning should be based on a flu pandemic. In speaking to the new report today, the inquiry chair said that, in the early stages of the pandemic, “All four governments failed to appreciate the scale of the threat or the urgency of response it demanded” and relied “in part on misleading assurances that the UK was properly prepared for a pandemic.” In taking forward the work that the Deputy First Minister referred to, which is a broader approach to crisis planning and preparedness, does she recognise that we are in the early stages of that work and that we are not well prepared for the kind of crises that we might face?”
“I am hopeful that the consultation will confirm what the Scottish Government has been saying for years, which is that communities must have more tangible benefits.”
“We have the community and renewable energy scheme Scotland, into which we have put additional money, so that we can meet demand for community ownership of renewable energy. I mentioned to Mercedes Villalba the repowering opportunities. I am giving first options to community groups that want to take up those options. Patrick Harvie made a good point about where the powers lie for mandating community benefits, which could include community ownership or part ownership. They lie with the UK Government. I am pleased to say that, where the Tories turned their back on communities and did not take up that option when they were in power, the current Government—[Interruption.] The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Lumsden! Cabinet secretary, please resume. Gillian Martin: The current Government is at least consulting on the matter.”
“Only those who want to rip up the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 and drag us back to the 20th century would fail to recognise the incredibly powerful role that offshore wind could play. However, we are in danger of repeating a missed opportunity in the development of onshore wind. Unlike some European countries that have managed to ensure a high proportion of public and community ownership of onshore wind, Scotland’s community ownership is marginal. How does the Scottish Government intend to ensure that we do not repeat that missed opportunity? Instead of merely asking the developers to make a voluntary contribution to community benefit, how do we intend to lock in public ownership and community ownership? Gillian Martin: There are a number of things to say, but I have been asked to be succinct.”
“Màiri McAllan: I share Patrick Harvie’s determination to rise to the challenge of climate change, and I understand how critical the decarbonisation of buildings is as part of that. However, it is my desire to see this actually work and be feasible in the real world that means that I have to pause the work today. Unfortunately, I can take from Patrick Harvie’s contribution only that he is happy to speculate on something as critical as how we heat our homes and what it costs homeowners and renters and for the Government and the Parliament to legislate without full understanding of what the UK Government intends to do about the cost of bills. To me, that is unacceptable.”
“The SNP had already let Scotland down when it first delayed the bill—dropping it entirely from this parliamentary session is more than a disappointment, and stripping the most serious content out of it will please only the new climate- change deniers on the political right. To blame anyone else for that decision, which is entirely of the SNP’s making, adds insult to injury. To do all that while mouthing platitudes about climate leadership turns this statement into a sick joke. Does the SNP understand that it will be held accountable for locking people into dependence on costly and polluting fossil fuel for years to come and for failing to back what should be a thriving clean heat industry in Scotland?”