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 6 of 11.
“The system for regional members, however, appears to accept the principle that the voters determine party balance, so I question the absence of a trigger in relation to somebody switching parties. It might be that this is an issue where there is no absolutely right or wrong answer. It might be arguable that there should not be an absolute trigger, in all circumstances, for someone changing political affiliation. However, for a member who joins an openly racist, far-right party that promotes climate change conspiracy and whose former high-profile leaders have taken bribes to shill for Vladimir Putin’s regime, voters’ legitimate disgust at that behaviour might be seen as grounds for recall. On physical non-attendance, I can see an argument for non-participation in the business of Parliament—”
“The issue of anonymous campaigning has been raised. I will not repeat what I have seen in Glasgow, but it has included anonymous smear graffiti that makes very serious allegations against a sitting MSP, not based on any conviction or charge. That kind of campaigning in conspiratorial terms happens already and could be weaponised in this process. We should also recognise the social media context. Extremely powerful social media platforms currently do nothing to police lies, conspiracy theories, racism and other forms of prejudice. Again, I fear that a petitions process would be vulnerable to that. Several members have talked about issues around the disparity that relates to regional members. I will not go over that ground again, because it has been discussed, but it seems to me to be only one aspect of the issues that need to be addressed.”
“There is a real risk that a petitions process would be used in a similar way. How could we prevent that? Have we even discussed whether political parties should be barred from campaigning or organising during the petitions process, so that it is led by the members of the public who are concerned rather than by political partisans? Alex Cole-Hamilton: Does Patrick Harvie recognise that we are not pioneers on recall, particularly in relation to the petitions process? The system of recall has been successfully in place at Westminster for several years. Those petitions have not proven to be partisan activities; in fact, they have rid us of some unsavoury parliamentarians. Patrick Harvie: I recognise that the situation is not fully unique, but my usual instinct is not to look to Westminster for a political system that we should copy.”
“Perhaps this is a paradoxical argument, but, in my view, Kevin Stewart’s amendment mentions factors that would be more helpful than what the bill would provide. It includes things that should happen regardless of what happens to the bill, and which would be more effective in addressing the issues that we are concerned about. If we develop any such system, we need to avoid the recall petition or the removal process becoming politicised. There is a real risk that any system that is based on a petition fails in that approach. In fact, in the early days of campaigning on the issue, the member in charge attempted to have the bill named—in an informal sense, at least—“the Derek Mackay bill”, which is the sort of term that the media might use. I think that his behaviour around that indicates that the intention was partisan from the outset.”
“Richard Leonard began his speech by saying that the bill raises more questions than answers. I fear that I am about to spend six minutes saying nothing more than that, whereas he said it with admirable simplicity. I have long supported the argument that there needs to be some measure of the ultimate disciplinary sanction for MSPs whose behaviour in any other workplace would be deemed gross misconduct and who would lose their jobs—for example, for sexual harassment or something similar. There is not currently a mechanism for members to lose our jobs if we act in a way that, in any other place, would be considered gross misconduct. I think that there should be. However, I have also long argued that any specific attempt to design such a mechanism will inevitably encounter significant problems.”
“We are determined to build on that progress and to see a public transport system in Scotland that is run for public benefit and that meets the interests of the communities that we serve. Business Motion 17:12”
“That will need resource, too, but it will be the most effective way to ensure that we end up with a public transport service that works for the public interest. I commend Claire Baker for her bravery in using the phrase “take back control” because I wish, for goodness’ sake, that the phrase had been coined as a slogan not by those who were seeking to blame the European Union for all the ills of the country but by those who were looking to blame the private sector, the super-rich and the billionaires. The bus system in this country has allowed the super-rich to line their pockets by running rubbish services that are fleecing people through tickets and not providing the service that is needed to a great many communities. Greens are proud of the progress that we have made, particularly on travel for under-22s.”
“We have seen ever-rising prices, services have been scrapped or are unreliable and many communities have been left without a service altogether. The Government often gets the blame when communities are poorly served in that way but, in fact, it proves that the free-market model is a failure. We need to move on, certainly to franchising— and, yes, the argument for shortening and simplifying that process is clear. As well as giving local authorities the ability to do that, we need to fund the process. We need to ensure that they are resourced and have access to the funding and skills that will enable them to use those powers. From that case for franchising, we then need to move on and talk about public ownership.”
“It is happening, it is working and it has been a huge success, with more than 250 million journeys taken. I have spoken to constituents of mine who had the option to take a job or a college course that they simply could not have afforded to do if they had had to pay the full cost of their bus travel. Publicly funded journeys—whether for younger people, older people or anyone else—help to make services more viable. They help to protect and preserve services that the private sector would otherwise seek to undermine. However, that also makes the case for moving away from what is a failed free-market model. The Conservative amendment talks about competition. We have had decades of competition in delivering bus services, and it has failed.”
“We will look at what the Government comes forward with and take a view on it when we see it, if the Government wants to make changes. However, it is clear—at least to me—that simply removing the free bus pass would not tackle antisocial behaviour. If somebody’s behaviour is the problem, simply saying that they should pay for their own ticket is not a solution, while simply saying that they should not be on the bus means that the behaviour will take place somewhere else. I would like us to think principally about the behaviour, rather than the bus pass. The under-22s free bus pass has been an overwhelming success. Although one or two members seem to be in denial about that and to think of it as some uncosted fantasy economics, I gently remind everyone that we have actually done it.”
“A number of members talked about the impact of antisocial behaviour. I believe—we all do—that every bus passenger should feel safe and be safe when using the bus. Every bus driver and worker in the bus services should feel safe at work and be safe at work. We recognise that that is an issue, but I also say that it is not entirely tied to the under-22s free bus pass. I regret that some people seem to want to tie together those issues a little too closely. I have seen antisocial behaviour on the wider public transport network, including on trains, and not just on buses. On buses, I have seen it from people who are significantly older than those young people who are sometimes stigmatised. I know from colleagues that such behaviour happens in parts of England and Wales that do not have something equivalent to the under-22s free bus pass.”
“He saw that the blame often lies with the private operators and that councils have been given the power to act but not the resource to do so. In too many parts of Scotland, we see private companies quite happily running the profitable bits of the network—some people think that that is a good thing—while abandoning other parts of the network or other communities and leaving the public sector to step in. A number of members gave examples of where communities have stepped in. Davy Russell is in the chamber, so I will mention Climate Action Strathaven, which runs the 3C bus in his constituency. That is how I travelled when we were all heading out there for the by-election campaign. Local communities should not have to step in to fill the gaps in a failed private sector model.”
“I thank all members who have contributed to the debate. It is clear that, across the chamber, there is a strong recognition of the value and importance of bus services to all the communities that we represent, whether that is in tackling child poverty and the cost of living or whether that is in enabling access to services, work, college and each other. I think that one member referred to buses enabling people to access a loch to have a picnic there. Bus travel was described during the debate as the “backbone” of public transport, and I think that that is right. I will mention Jamie Greene’s speech because he was one of a number of members who talked about the reduction in bus services, especially in the more rural parts of his region. He did not simply blame the Government for that; he recognised that the model is broken.”
“Jim Fairlie: I move, as an amendment to motion S6M-19632, to leave out from “further agrees” to end and insert: "recognises that competition is essential to keeping bus fares fair and reasonable; calls on the Scottish Government to enhance the reliability and punctuality of bus services through the greater interlinking of timetables and integrated ticketing across bus and rail providers; agrees that good road surfaces are essential to improve bus services; notes that communities across Scotland, but particularly in rural areas, struggle to access bus services, and urges the Scottish Government to take action to make buses safer and to expedite the process to remove bus passes from passengers who commit antisocial behaviour." The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Sue Webber to speak to and move amendment S6M- 19632.2. 16:18”
“Will the minister give way? The Deputy Presiding Officer: The minister is about to conclude. Jim Fairlie: I look forward to hearing members’ contributions this afternoon. It is clear that growing bus patronage and reflecting local circumstances in decision making all contribute significantly to delivering improved bus services for all— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Minister, I must move on and call Sue Webber—we have no more time in hand.”
“It was right in principle in the face of the climate emergency and also right for Scotland in embracing the transition that we are so well placed to benefit from. Today, such climate clarity is nowhere to be seen from the Scottish Government. Today’s First Minister cannot take a clear position, the draft climate change plan sidesteps the issue and the Government’s energy strategy seems to have disappeared completely. The Scottish Greens can and will make the case, explicitly, that the Scottish Government must unequivocally oppose the Rosebank plan. No climate compatibility test worthy of the name can give the go-ahead to this immensely destructive project.”
“The Scottish Greens have secured today’s debate in order to discuss the imminent decision that will be made on the revised application to drill for fossil fuels at the Rosebank field, the United Kingdom’s largest undeveloped oil and gas field. It is one of the most consequential decisions on climate action that will be made this decade. Four years ago, the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26— opened in Glasgow. It was a time of huge momentum for the climate movement, both in Scotland and internationally. In the run-up to the event, the then First Minister Nicola Sturgeon announced her position that Rosebank should not be given the go-ahead. Green MSPs had for some time made the case for that clear stance to be taken, but I am in no doubt that Nicola Sturgeon knew that it was the right position to take.”
“We have so much scope, particularly in reducing emissions that are associated with heat and transport, that we do not have to put an additional burden on farmers and effectively destroy the industry, which is very much part of the fabric of Scotland and is critical to our economy.”
“We are absolutely clear that we need to reach net zero in a way that works for rural Scotland and plays to our strengths. Cutting our livestock numbers would mean that we would import more produce from outwith the UK. That would not help to reduce emissions globally. As someone from a rural area, I know very well the work that has been done on farms to reduce their emissions and to improve the livestock, plant and soil health associated with their work. We need to bring farmers with us. We need to realise that they are part of the solution and not work against them.”
“Gillian Martin: I appreciate that members have not had a great deal of time to look at the climate change plan. Perhaps when Patrick Harvie has time to read it more fully over the weekend, he will spot that it includes a 16 per cent reduction from car-based emissions. I also want to address Patrick Harvie’s point about the Climate Change Committee’s advice—it is advice. I have spoken to the Climate Change Committee since we made our decision to take a different path by putting more of our emissions reduction into transport, as opposed to reducing livestock numbers. It has warmly welcomed the fact that we have made our own decisions in that area, because it respects the fact that Scotland has to plough its own furrow, if I can use that metaphor.”
“Scotland is years behind where we should be on climate but, instead of accelerating action, when the SNP ended the Bute house agreement, it decided to slow that action down. Its draft plan today contains no change. The Government has rejected the Climate Change Committee’s clear advice on agriculture. It has scrapped the road traffic reduction targets and replaced them with nothing. It has given no clarity at all on new fossil fuel extraction. It has filleted the heat in buildings bill and now proposes a target with no delivery mechanism. That has been tried and has failed many times before, on many different issues. How on earth can the cabinet secretary think that slowing down action will let the country catch up on lost ground?”
“The question is whether a national investigation needs to proceed alongside that task force, be part of its work or be framed by it. I was interested in the point that Stephen Kerr made when he talked about the emphasis of an investigation into culture. Both investigations would be legitimate, but that is different from an “investigation into the design and delivery of maternity and neonatal services”, which is suggested in the Labour motion. Different but equally valid issues are being raised. The cabinet secretary said—I think that I am quoting him correctly—that he would be “more than happy” for a national investigation to take place if its scope and nature were determined and informed by experts.”
“Many of these issues go back a significant time and are not news to those who have been working in the system for a long time, but the recent inspection reports have highlighted continued issues with staff shortages, inconsistent training and inequality between regions. All of that leads us to the question that is posed by the Labour motion: does the situation require a national investigation in addition to the steps that were announced last week? I welcome the steps that were announced by the cabinet secretary last week in relation to the Scottish maternity and neonatal task force. We should recognise the importance of the clinical advice and expertise that will be brought into that, as well as the escalation of the support and intervention framework in NHS Lothian. Those must be seen as first steps.”
“The whistleblowing report found that patient safety was being compromised by a series of factors, including staff shortages, which led to delays. It said: “There is no dispute that there have been safety concerns, near misses and actual adverse outcomes for women and babies.” It talked about a toxic working environment as well. Before then, a survey of RCM members across Scotland had exposed the scale of the challenges that professionals face every day. There are too few staff, a poor skills mix, inadequate equipment, substandard environments and no time to learn and develop. In 2023, the RCM’s “state of maternity services” report detailed how rising intervention rates, increasing complexity and growing policy and regulatory demands required a larger, more skilled workforce.”
“She did not give in to the temptation to make repeated comments about “this SNP Government” or such a thing as “SNP workforce planning”—I am not sure what that even means. Sandesh Gulhane: Will the member take an intervention, so that I can explain? Patrick Harvie: I will make some progress. The motion was presented in a way that reflected that the issue goes beyond party politics and that it should do. What we have seen and been informed about over the recent period goes beyond what was in just one documentary. Some of the issues that we have heard about in recent weeks go back years. A whistleblower investigation in 2024, which informed the recent BBC documentary, talked about mothers and newborn babies coming to harm because of staff shortages and a toxic culture at Edinburgh’s maternity unit.”
“Every member who has spoken so far has talked about the profound impact on individuals and families who have been failed by the system, and I think that we can all recognise the seriousness of that. I acknowledge Willie Rennie’s comments at the start of his speech about the recognition that we owe to the incredibly dedicated and hard-working staff, who are doing their best. We must also provide reassurance, which Willie Rennie also spoke about, that, in the large majority of cases, services are safe and are being provided to a standard that people can have confidence in. We all have a responsibility not to exacerbate fears but to respond legitimately to failings when they have happened. Because these issues are so profound, they go beyond party politics. I welcome Jackie Baillie’s motion and the tone with which she presented it.”
“I also recognise the Public Health Scotland figures that he has quoted with regard to the waiting times at the Sandyford and wider services, which are undoubtedly a challenge for us. I, too, have constituents who are in a similar situation, so I recognise the pressure that that puts on them and on staff. The Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health is investing in areas to explore how we can alleviate those pressures on waiting times.”
“One group of my constituents who are undoubtedly seeing a worse performance from the NHS than 10 years ago are those who are seeking gender healthcare from Sandyford, which serves not only NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde but seven other health board areas. Public Health Scotland data that was published last week shows that some 4,000 people are on the waiting list, with fewer than 50 first appointments a year. Can the cabinet secretary give my constituents any reassurance that some dramatic change is on its way, to ensure that that woeful performance turns around? Neil Gray: I acknowledge Mr Harvie’s point and the consistency with which he has raised it, including in our regular one-to-one discussions, for which I am very grateful.”
“It was evident to me that for people who are already having to deal with acute and desperate levels of poverty, climate change adds another level of threat. I recognise that connection, and that is also why the Scottish Government’s programmes are focused in the way that they are. I will consider the point that the member has raised about the treaty.”
“To be meaningful, international development must be rooted in climate justice, as I think that the First Minister recognises. One key ask from Scotland’s International Development Alliance is for the Scottish Government to endorse a fossil fuel non- proliferation treaty. By doing so, it would be joining 143 city, local and subnational governments around the world, including Glasgow and Edinburgh city councils. Will the First Minister add Scotland’s national voice to that growing global call for such a treaty by formally endorsing it? The First Minister: Patrick Harvie correctly identifies the impact of climate change as an exacerbation of the challenges that the global south already faces.”
“It has been argued that the bill does not embed a trauma-informed approach and that, although that needs to be addressed, there is a lack of clarity about what changes could possibly achieve that. The bill’s requirement for a medical practitioner to make the treatment determination risks overmedicalising the process, and it fails to recognise that other routes to accessing services are often hugely important. There is a concern that the costs, including for staff training, would go far beyond those estimated in the financial memorandum, and that that, in itself, would have a detrimental impact on the provision of services. There is also a concern that, by creating a legal right to treatment within a fixed timeframe, when capacity in services takes time to expand and be developed—”
“The bill would need to address the concern that the legal right to treatment in some areas would result in the deprioritisation of investment in prevention and early intervention. There is a concern that the bill will create a precedent for the creation of legal rights to treatment in specific health areas. I do not think that it takes much imagination to think where we could get to in a relatively short space of time if the allocation of resources in healthcare were determined not by clinical need but by whether individual bills had passed through Parliament. It was suggested that the bill needs to give more clarity on how the support that is given by carers, family members and others could be brought into the process. It is unclear how or whether that could be addressed at stage 2.”
“Even though there is broad support for the direction of travel of the Government’s policy of investing in services and innovating, there is frustration about the pace at which that is happening. We know that those things take time. With a small number of passionate exceptions, most of the evidence that was heard at stage 1 was broadly critical of the bill. A long list of concerns has been raised. Absolutely nobody has been in denial of the problem, but many have argued that the bill is the wrong answer to it. A number of changes would need to be made to the bill if it were to progress: it would need to be made consistent with the current policy and legal framework, rather than being in conflict with it. The current framework is regarded as being more collaborative and less medicalised.”
“If the bill cannot be improved to the satisfaction of Patrick Harvie and the Greens, they should vote it down at stage 3, not shut down the opportunity to keep on talking about the issue and improving the bill. Patrick Harvie: I will come to the detailed reasons as to why I will not take that path and why I do not think that it would be the right decision. In opening, I also want to express the hope and the confidence that Jackie Baillie was not intending to imply that anyone treats the topic as a game. We all take it with extreme seriousness, and recognise that Scotland has a wildly unacceptable number of drug deaths and that there is a significant degree of frustration about the pace of change.”
“Whether we pass a bill on one subject and do not pass a bill on another does not tell us how much we care or do not care about a topic. The Parliament has a responsibility to pass what we believe is good legislation. I do not think that it is about sending signals. Douglas Ross: If the member does not agree with my point about the optics of passing stage 1 of a dog theft bill versus a bill that is trying to save people’s lives, does he agree with my point about shutting down further debate on an issue? That is what the Greens and the SNP will be doing at decision time. They could vote against the bill at stage 3; they should at least give the bill time to be improved.”
“I begin by acknowledging the work that Douglas Ross has put into lodging the bill in the Parliament. Any member’s bill, whether it is consensual or controversial and whatever the topic, takes a significant amount of work, which we should acknowledge. I also acknowledge the work of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee. I joined the committee part-way through the scrutiny process, so I acknowledge the work that was done before I joined it. I took the time to watch and read the evidence that I had not been present for and I express my thanks to all the witnesses who contributed to and enriched the scrutiny process. We should also all recognise the shared commitment to the issue. Respectfully, I disagree with Douglas Ross’s point about optics.”
“Now, however, on all three of those key issues, far from accelerating action to make up for lost ground, the SNP is slowing down. A 20 per cent target to cut car traffic has been dropped—not revised, as the Government originally announced, as there has been no replacement for that target.”
“Four years ago, the Greens agreed to join the Government, and a large part of our motivation in doing so was to restore that urgency, especially in three key areas that have not seen enough progress. One is cutting road traffic, which the Scottish Government knows needs to happen to address climate change and to cut local air pollution. Another is pressing ahead with a credible programme on clean heating, which is an area where the policy experts had previously been held back by the politicians, despite the unarguable need to decarbonise by ditching fossil fuel heating. Finally, on land use, a change in the nature of subsidy and support offers opportunities for reduced emissions and strong rural economies, meeting the need for healthier diets.”
“I will start by reflecting on where we are in this journey. We have already used up nearly half the time from the first climate act to the 2045 target. In that time, we have fallen behind schedule, with a series of missed targets. The only rational response to falling behind schedule is to speed up, yet some people seem determined to advocate the very opposite. The easy bit has been done already; from here on, it gets harder, and we have long known that that was going to be the case. It is not just technically harder; it is politically harder, too. That is shown by the way that the political parties of the increasingly extreme right are breaking the consensus and dropping support for any credible climate policy. It is also shown by the lack of urgency that we are seeing from the SNP.”
“Obviously, if that is to happen, it will have to be by next Thursday at the very latest, yet the business motion that is before us does not allocate any time to debate the carbon budgets. Therefore, I am asking for an assurance from the minister.”
“I would prefer not to vote against the business motion, but I need to ask for some assurance and a commitment from the minister in relation to an issue that he will be aware that the Greens have repeatedly raised with the Parliamentary Bureau: the long-overdue carbon budgets, which are due to be presented to Parliament and have already been scrutinised by the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. We have been asking for clarity about when the carbon budgets will be put to the vote and an assurance that time will be allocated to debate that hugely important issue. This week, we received a letter from Mr Dey, in his role as the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans, telling us that he hopes that the vote will take place prior to the October recess.”
“If we want schools to teach those skills, sometimes the question to ask is what the right role is for phones in classrooms, in the right context; it is not just about having a blanket ban. I will finish by saying, once again, that the problem does not stop when the school day ends, when young people leave the class or leave the school—far from it. The harms that all members are concerned about in the debate are not inevitable. They are really the result not of the technology itself, but of the deliberate choices of the wealthy, powerful people whom we have permitted to control the technology and how we all use it. 15:43”
“I also imagine how much worse it is for, for example, young trans people who are coping with the level of prejudice that is being beamed through those devices right into their eyeballs every day, let alone for young people who are being affected by racism or anti- migrant prejudice, those who are vulnerable to the pressure to present Instagram lifestyles and Instagram bodies, and those who are desperate for information about their health or their wellbeing and finding only lies and conspiracies. Pam Duncan-Glancy: Will the member take an intervention? Patrick Harvie: I am afraid that I do not have time. Ending the use of phones as a distraction in class is fine, but we must also enable our schools to give young people the skills to navigate their lives in this age of information and disinformation.”
“When I consider the social and cultural environment in which I grew up as a queer, out young person in the 1980s, I just imagine how much worse that experience would have been had every homophobic bully on the planet—whether it was the person sitting at the next desk in my classroom or someone in Government or in a position of power in the country—been able to access me directly and to beam that prejudice right into my eyeballs.”
“That, in itself, is a distraction from the wider issue that all members across the chamber are genuinely concerned about. Members have spoken about the impact on learning and of conflict. Those are social and cultural phenomena that are part of our behaviour. They come from us and do not inevitably come from the technology itself. I have been left thinking that, had someone described mobiles to me when I was a young person growing up in the west of Scotland in the 1980s, they would have sounded like something from science fiction—a great, enlightening and liberating technology, giving us all access to the sum total of human knowledge and the ability to communicate with anybody else in the world. They would have sounded so utopian. In reality, they have become something deeply dystopian.”
“The debate has been interesting. A number of members have used the word “distraction”, but it is coincidental that this has been a slightly distracted debate. I think that Neil Bibby was the first one to suggest that the Government is being distracted, when he said that it is being “distracted by the constitution”. I think that he is the only member who mentioned the constitution in the debate, proving that it is not only independence supporters who are distracted by the constitution. There have, however, been aspects of the debate in which we have been distracted from the real issue—it is not only in classrooms where that happens. Should this serious debate really come down to the difference between a cabinet secretary issuing an edict and respecting the autonomy and the judgment of schools and headteachers?”
“I will back the motion and the Government amendment at decision time. The policy stance on phones in classrooms is fine as far as it goes, but I am not sure that the debate about whether it should be a blanket decision by a cabinet secretary or up to the autonomy of individual schools and headteachers is really where the issue is at. We must not allow that action to result in complacency about the wider issue—the world of abusive, bigoted, conspiracist and untrue content that we have all created and the impact that it is having on everyone, including the young people who are growing up on it. A policy of no phones in classrooms is fine, but it will not end the need to take a far more robust approach to regulating social media and tackling the far-right and toxic culture warriors. 15:14”
“Prejudice, racism, anti-migrant propaganda, homophobia and transphobia have been growing in intensity to the point that, even at the highest level of politics in the United Kingdom, there are politicians who openly debate whether black or brown people can ever be British, English or Scottish—ideas that, not so long ago, would have been the preserve of the British National Party. Much of that activity is promoted and even directly paid for by social media platforms—X, YouTube and others are paying people huge sums of money to produce it and then aggressively pushing it out to audiences, especially young people. That torrent of far-right and conspiracist propaganda is the information landscape that young people are growing up in. If phones are switched back on as soon as young people leave the classroom, they are still vulnerable.”
“Paloma’s mother had been radicalised against science-based healthcare by that type of content, and that influence led Paloma to refuse chemotherapy that could have saved her life. Her story has become a tragic example of the way that social media platforms such as Instagram, TikTok and X have become sources of health information and disinformation, with millions of people— increasingly, young people—relying on them for advice and being misled. Health conspiracies on other issues, such as anti-vaccine conspiracies and the promotion of fake treatments, also circulate. Recently, days after Donald Trump promoted dangerous rubbish about paracetamol and autism, a member of this Parliament echoed that baseless idea. Scotland is by no means immune.”
“The cabinet secretary said that Labour’s motion is missing something, but I think that both the motion and the amendment are missing something, because the debate is not just about distraction in class but about young people’s ability to learn to navigate an increasingly fraught, hostile and disturbing information landscape. Many aspects of today’s permanently online life do not stop when the school day ends—far from it. Young people face multiple issues, including bullying, targeted abuse against minorities, marketing, conspiracy theories and racist and far-right content—all beaming at them 24 hours a day through these devices. It is not accidental. It is built into the business models of social media platforms and others. I cite the death of 23-year-old Paloma Shemirani.”