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 7 of 11.
“Pam Duncan-Glancy quoted young people welcoming the change of policy on phones in classrooms, and she talked about having a sensible boundary during lessons. I welcome that, and I will support the motion, but it is disappointing that Labour does not support the Government amendment, which also seems sensible and balanced to me. It seems that Labour wants to present the idea of a simple blanket and uniform rule while still acknowledging the need for exceptions and individual reasons and acknowledging different circumstances. I agree that we need to recognise the autonomy of schools. That being said, I support the motion and the Government’s amendment.”
“However, as I set out in my previous answer, we will continue to engage with a range of organisations, including the ones that Mr Harvie alluded to. It is really important that the Government listens to the views of young people on those issues directly. We continue to fund LGBT Youth Scotland. We also provide funding to the TIE campaign to deliver work around inclusive education in our schools—which, of course, every party was able to vote for back in 2018. It is important that we remember the solidarity that existed previously on these issues. I will continue to work with the organisations that Mr Harvie alluded to, and particularly to listen to the voice of young people in all that I do as education secretary.”
“Although some members might not want to accept it, the people who are most directly affected by the changes are trans and non-binary young people themselves. The cabinet secretary referred to the document that was published by LGBT Youth Scotland some years ago. Can she tell us what input young trans and non-binary people, and the organisations that work with and represent them, have had to the recent changes—whether LGBT Youth Scotland, the Time for Inclusive Education campaign, Scottish Trans or others? If the answer is none, why is that? Jenny Gilruth: As I alluded to in my response to Ms Gosal, the update to the guidance is technical in nature and responds directly to the Supreme Court’s ruling in that regard.”
“It would be crazy not to focus on them and deploy our investment in order to realise that massive potential for Scotland and for our companies. We are bringing about cheap, cleaner energy and all the other benefits that go with that.”
“In response to the original question, the idea that a private sector industry body lobbies for its own self- interest might be the least surprising revelation that I have ever heard. Work by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research shows that, United Kingdom-wide, renewables can generate up to six times as many jobs as nuclear. Does the minister agree that if the Conservative Party was the least bit interested in jobs, low-cost energy and low carbon, it would embrace the net zero opportunities for Scotland in the future instead of trying to drag us back to the technology of the 1960s? Richard Lochhead: I agree with Patrick Harvie. Scotland has a golden opportunity and a competitive advantage. We have the massive natural resource of all our renewable energy and clean energy sources.”
“We need to be clear eyed about the dire threat that has resulted from UK Government after UK Government dancing to the far right’s tune and allowing both traditional and social media to become propaganda machines for extremism. There is still reason for optimism. Even after decades of anti-asylum propaganda, in every community we can find people giving their time, energy and resources to support asylum seekers and to show that the instinct to reach out and help those who need it is a basic part of human nature. It is strong. We need Governments and politicians who share that instinct, who will express it and who will explicitly challenge and oppose the racism of the far right. 16:54”
“Despite years, even decades, of evidence from countries right around the world, the political parties that claim the centre ground in UK politics are doing nothing to challenge the profoundly dishonest, racist grifters of the far right. Instead, they are signalling to the electorate that the priorities of people such as Farage and Robinson are the right ones. Aping the far right is obviously wrong in principle; also, it will never work. Those people already have wall-to-wall media coverage for their hateful agenda, and the current UK Government risks giving them the political power to demolish our human rights and to treat immigrants and asylum seekers as subhuman, all while slashing public services even more severely and handing what is left of the economy to the super-rich.”
“Even at that stage, what we are seeing now might have seemed unthinkable: openly racist, ethno-nationalist ideology is being mainstreamed. Members of Parliament are openly discussing mass deportation and questioning whether black and brown people can ever be considered British or English; the UK’s shadow justice secretary is quite content to be photographed in the company of a founder member of Combat 18, a neo-Nazi terror group; and a man who proudly showed the world a Nazi salute is now not only using the social media platform that he bought to tolerate explicit far-right racist and conspiracy content, but actively paying people to generate that content.”
“The claimants are found to deserve and need the right to stay here and, as others have mentioned, the backlog is entirely the result of deliberate choices by successive Governments. As for housing, what broke the UK’s housing system is the long-term decline in socially rented housing and its replacement by a rapacious, exploitative private rented sector. Asylum seekers are not to blame for the lack of investment in affordable housing. They are not to blame for landlords hiking rents or for the pressure on our public services. Those things are the result of choices made by successive UK Governments. The UK Government’s explicit hostile environment policy began in around 2012, and anti-immigrant and racist sentiment peaked with Brexit.”
“I recognise the context for this debate. The UK still receives a small number of refugees compared with many other countries. Seventy-two per cent of refugees live in countries that neighbour their country of origin. The UK hosts only about 1 per cent of the world’s refugees, and the truth is that they make a huge contribution to this country, economically and socially. As for the numbers, asylum applications peaked in 2002 at around 84,000 a year. In 2024, the number was around 84,000 in the year. So far, the figures for 2025 show a slight increase, but there are still significantly fewer than many other European countries receive, and the current peak is similar to previous high points. That is nothing to be surprised at, given the growth in conflict and economic or climate stress around the world. Most claims are legitimate.”
“Will the member give way? The Deputy Presiding Officer: The member is concluding. Meghan Gallacher: I will not give way, as I am in my last couple of seconds. Housing is central to the debate. Scotland’s housing emergency was not created overnight; it is the product of decades of failure to build enough homes. We see that through the homelessness applications and through the thousands of Scots who are trapped on social housing waiting lists. Yet, asylum seekers are being placed in hotels while local families wait. The solution is straightforward. If we get a grip on the housing emergency and build more homes, we will be able to look at immigration in a new light. However, I fear that, until then, we will still have tensions in Scotland, because we are not addressing the big issues that matter in this country. 16:32”
“Recognition of the state is long overdue, but it is only the first step towards justice for Palestine. I move amendment S6M-18686.1, to insert at end: “, and calls on the Scottish and UK governments to immediately impose a package of boycotts, divestment and sanctions targeted at the State of Israel and at companies complicit in its military operations and its occupation of Palestine.” 16:11”
“Calling for a ceasefire, aid, hostage releases and a two-state settlement is the easy bit. However, the Labour Government has not used the international voice of the UK to condemn the United States and Trump’s explicit proposals for ethnic cleansing. This issue does not stop with state recognition. There is further action that the international community must take, including co-ordinated international sanctions. The world must work together to deliver what it voted for at the UN 50 years ago: the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, national independence and sovereignty in Palestine. The Palestinian state that emerges must have global support to rebuild what Israel’s violence has destroyed, and it must have robust security guarantees against future incursion, invasion or occupation.”
“Labour’s amendment to the motion that we are debating recognises some positive steps, so we will not oppose it, but it takes too much credit for half measures and is a reminder of just how lacking the UK Government’s response has been. Respecting the ICC is an important principle, but there are those, including the Prime Minister, who have used it as an excuse for not describing the situation as genocide. Obviously, we support restoration of UNRWA funding, but arms export restrictions have been extremely limited. The UK has continued to provide other forms of practical and political support to the Israeli Government. Sanctions on Israeli ministers are welcome, but the UK has not taken any steps against UK citizens who have travelled to Israel, fought for the IDF, killed a few Palestinians and returned home to face no legal consequences.”
“There are actions that do not rely on waiting for permission from the UK Government, such as disapplying part of the Local Government Act 1988 to allow councils to boycott companies that are complicit in the occupation, calling for public pension funds to divest from complicit companies, urging businesses to cease trading with Israel—exactly as the Scottish Government did in relation to Russia—and stopping giving public moneys to arms dealers that supply Israel. I very warmly welcome the announcement today that some of those steps will be taken; we will continue to press for others. The UK Government should do the same and can do far more. The UK talks of the right of Israel to defend itself but says nothing about the right of Palestinians to resist occupation.”
“It sets out that “the actions of the Israeli Government against Palestinians have included torture, arbitrary detention, and sexual and reproductive violence; deliberate attacks on medical professionals, humanitarian aid workers and journalists; and the deliberate deprivation of food, water, medicine and electricity”. It also sets out the explicit statements of intent, which are genocidal in nature, from senior members of the Israeli Government. It is unquestionable that, to achieve justice for Palestine, action must be taken. There is action that Scotland can take. During the recess, my colleague Ross Greer wrote to the Scottish Government to set out the actions that it can and should take now—on boycotts, divestment and sanctions.”
“I welcome this opportunity for Parliament to endorse the recognition of Palestine. It is more than 50 years since the United Nations recognised the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and sovereignty. Over those five decades, the failure of the international community to make that right a reality has been one of the greatest injustices in modern world history. The urgency is clear for anybody who can bring themselves to look. For generations, Palestinians have endured a brutal occupation, and for almost two years now, they have been subjected to war crimes on a grotesque scale. The weight of legal opinion is absolutely clear: this is genocide. The recent resolution of the International Association of Genocide Scholars provides one example.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to support local authorities and other public bodies to apply ethical criteria when deciding whether to divest from sectors such as fossil fuels, arms companies and businesses complicit in occupation or war crimes. (S6O-04875)”
“If we really want to redesign the network to improve frequencies and coverage, introduce flat affordable fares, expand fare-free travel and create a unified information and ticketing system— in short, if we want to create a bus service that works in the public interest and returns revenue to the public purse—the next stop should be full public ownership under a municipal operator. That is the vision that we should be working to realise in Glasgow and then in the rest of the country: transport as a public service. It can happen, but it needs Scottish Government support, investment and political will. Glasgow deserves world-class public transport. 16:57”
“Taking bus fleets and depots into public ownership would, in the first instance, give franchising real teeth. A franchising arrangement that left fleets and depots in the hands of private companies would be a half measure. According to STUC data, First Glasgow has a 10 per cent profit margin compared with 9.1 per cent for Scotland’s only publicly owned bus company, which is Lothian Buses. Lothian Buses has returned a dividend of £36 million over the past decade. If it was a private service, that money would have gone into the pockets of already wealthy people. Instead, it has gone where it should go—back into improving the service that people rely on.”
“However, as well as the process being slow, the 2019 act requires the plan to come under the scrutiny of an independent panel convened by the traffic commissioner for Scotland. The equivalent legislation in England does not have that requirement. SPT has asked that the panel approval process be removed, and a very simple bill in this Parliament could remove that unnecessary step. SPT also estimates that it could take seven years to introduce a bus franchise. In the meantime, it plans to move ahead with a bus service improvement partnership. However, I share the concerns of Get Glasgow Moving, which suggests that any use of the BSIP programme would delay efforts to establish the franchise. SPT could avoid the BSIP route if the Scottish Government provided funding to accelerate franchising. From there, we need to go on to public ownership.”
“The Bee Network combines buses, trams, trains, walking, wheeling and cycling to create a seamless travel experience in the kind of disaster that Glasgow’s bus services can only dream of. I recognise everyone who has put in tireless efforts to campaign for a better bus service for Glasgow, notably Get Glasgow Moving, and I commend the work of the Scottish Trades Union Congress and others who are building the case for change and pointing to solutions. What are those solutions? The first stop is franchising, which brings public control over routes, fares and service standards—things that are currently dictated by private operators. Franchising in the Strathclyde Partnership for Transport area would be the first test case for the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019.”
“I was very amused to see ahead of the debate the rather childish name-calling from Sandy Easdale of McGill’s in today’s Glasgow Times. He claimed that Manchester’s franchising has been a “disaster”, so let us take a look at some of the results of that disaster. Patronage has increased by 14 per cent year on year in the first franchising areas, and punctuality regularly exceeds the 80 per cent target, compared with a rate of 66 per cent before franchising. Communities are better connected, with more residents living within a five-minute walk to a half- hourly service, and there are more affordable fares, convenient integrated ticketing, cleaner and greener buses, and a pilot of 24/7 bus services, reinstating night-time services to the north-west of the city for the first time in a decade.”
“Just today, I had an email from a constituent about another cancelled bus route, this time the number 65 between the city centre and Halfway in Cambuslang, which First Bus has confirmed it will end in just a few weeks’ time. The system is not working. Deregulation, privatisation and running public transport for profit have never worked for passengers. I am pleased that the Greens have made good progress in recent years on some important improvements, most significant of which is free bus travel for young people and for asylum seekers. However, the truth is that bus services in Glasgow, and in much of Scotland, bear no comparison with those in many other European cities and countries. Even in other parts of the United Kingdom, such as Manchester, dramatic progress has been made in recent years.”
“I will spare members the grisly details, but I was attending a public service that people need good-quality public transport to be able to reach. I can honestly say that the task of planning and undertaking the multi- operator bus journey to get to the hospital was significantly more stressful than the medical procedure that I was there for. Bus fares are simply ludicrous, with an all-day city ticket on First Bus costing almost £6 and— bizarrely—two single journeys costing even more than that. No one believes that they are getting value for money—and that is before we consider whether the routes that we need can be depended on.”
“People are far more likely to ask whether the bus that they want has been and gone, because the idea of actually relying on the published timetable is largely a joke. Even at the few stops that have electronic displays, the more typical experience is to watch as the minutes count down to the time for the bus that you are waiting for and then to roll your eyes as the time disappears from the screen, although the bus never appears on the road. The network is fragmented, with different routes being covered by different operators who do not recognise one another’s tickets. I made a recent trip to a Glasgow hospital for reasons that I will not go into but that are nothing that most men in their 50s have not experienced.”
“It is usual to begin a members’ business debate by thanking those who have chosen to stay late for it, and I have a double reason to thank those who have chosen to stay late on the last day before recess. I am grateful to those who have chosen to participate and to those who added their names in support of my motion. Those names include members of four political parties. I am sorry that they are not represented in the chamber, but they are represented in their support for the motion. I will begin by talking about the state of Glasgow’s bus services. People standing at a bus stop in Glasgow will rarely hear anyone ask when the bus is due or see them check the timetable, because most people quite simply know not to bother.”
“My amendments are not complicated; they are practical. They would set in statute the processes of annual consultation, transparency and reasoned response, and they would make it clear that an inspection must not ignore the views of those whose work it evaluates. Some may say that this is merely procedural, but I argue the opposite: it is cultural and foundational. It is about whether we will build an education system that is rooted in partnership or in prescription. My amendments in the group answer that question, and I urge all members to support them. I move amendment 29. 16:30”
“As we have seen in recent surveys by the NASUWT and the Educational Institute of Scotland, Scottish teachers are under enormous pressure. Verbal abuse, physical assault, dwindling support staff and ever-shifting expectations are taking their toll. Amid all of that, the least that we can do is to ensure that inspection is something that is done with teachers and not to them. We cannot forget our colleagues in the college sector. With the reforms that were proposed by the Withers review and major transformations in post- school learning delivery, college lecturers are facing immense structural and pedagogical—I have a problem saying that word—change. I should have said teaching, should I not? It is vital that the inspection process in further education listens to and reflects the experience of college lecturers as well.”
“That failure has been characterised by centralisation, opacity and an unwillingness to hear difficult truths from the profession. My amendments in the group offer us a legislative opportunity to change that. They would promote a culture of collaboration in which inspections are seen not as external judgments imposed from on high but as part of a shared endeavour to raise standards for all learners. Indeed, that collaborative approach is not only fairer, but also more effective. Research consistently shows that systems improve most when those within them feel that they have ownership of the process of reform. A system that is designed with teachers will work better than one that is designed for them. We must also consider morale.”
“The chief inspector would then be required either to act on those recommendations or to explain in writing why they were not doing that. That would create not only a pathway for practitioner influence, but a safeguard against indifference. If we are serious about building a system that is based on mutual respect and continuous improvement—the Opposition parties in this place are certainly serious about building such a system—the voices of teachers cannot be included as an afterthought. They must be embedded in the very architecture of the inspection. The amendments would ensure just that. We know from our debates on the bill and the reports that we have all studied that there has been a cultural failure at the heart of Scottish education governance.”
“During the stage 2 proceedings, I raised the issue that top-down models of inspection often miss the local contextual knowledge that classroom teachers and college lecturers possess. That argument is not abstract. It is grounded in the evidence of what went wrong with previous models. The Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development report made a related point when it criticised the lack of robust feedback mechanisms between policy and practice. There is no point in inspecting a system if the process does not learn from the professionals who deliver it. Amendments 30, 38, 39 and 236 would go further and provide an annual structured mechanism by which teachers and lecturers could make recommendations on how inspections are conducted.”
“The Muir report, which put learners at the centre, was clear in its critique of Education Scotland’s dual role and its failure to engage meaningfully with the teaching profession. The report was underpinned by the testimony of more than 5,000 voices across Scottish education, and one of its clearest messages was that teachers and practitioners felt unheard. We must take that message seriously. My amendments in the group are about creating an inspection system that teachers can trust, not by lowering expectations but by really listening to the profession. When we fail to engage with those at the chalk face, we do not just alienate them but also impoverish our understanding of what is really happening in our schools and colleges. These are not meaningless amendments; they mean a great deal to the people who are engaged in teaching.”
“We are, in many ways, not making much progress on that. My amendments in group 16 speak to a single foundational principle—that those who teach, support and lead learning in our schools and colleges must have a central voice in shaping how we inspect and improve our education system. That has been commented on by many teacher leaders, including representatives of the teaching trade unions. Amendments 29 and 81 would establish that the design, structure and practical application of the inspection process must be developed in genuine consultation with the representatives of teachers and college teaching staff. That is not an optional courtesy—it is a necessity. We have heard time and time again that there has been a profound breakdown in the trust between the profession and those who are charged with inspecting and evaluating it.”
“Stephen Kerr: Only Patrick Harvie could take up the time of the Parliament to make a point about me making points that are not relevant to an amendment. That was a ridiculous point of order. The reality is that every amendment that was brought to the chamber yesterday by members of all the Opposition parties was lodged in good faith. Not one amendment that was spoken to yesterday was designed to wreck the bill. They were all designed to make a poor bill better, to give it substance, to make it matter and to honour the voices of teachers, learners and parents who have spent years crying out for change. This is the only bill that we have had in the current session of Parliament that has sought to change the education system for the better, and I doubt whether it will do that unless it is seriously amended.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am sorry, but I think that our hearts are all sinking at the idea of a repeat performance. I am sure that the member thinks that this is very funny, but is there anything in standing orders that requires him to speak to the amendments in the group rather than making other random points that take up time and try our patience? [Applause.] The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Harvie. I think that I have made it clear that the chair intends to proceed in accordance with the timetabling motion that was agreed to by all of the Parliament yesterday afternoon. It is for members to speak to amendments, but they may well wish to draw on other points in so doing.”
“As I have said at committee and in the chamber, it is important to build a political consensus on what any substantial reform to council tax looks like, otherwise it will not get off first base. That remains my position in relation to not only the parties in the chamber but local government and, importantly, the public.”
“The envelope is not fixed. The cabinet secretary’s statement acknowledges that tax policy will have to play a role if we are to avoid damaging cuts to public services. The plan that she has published today commits to ensuring that local taxes are fair and sustainable. Why, then, has the Government continued to oppose Green proposals to revalue council tax, which is the most substantial local tax that exists? Why does the work to replace that broken, outdated and deeply unfair tax seem to have stalled completely? Shona Robison: We continue to discuss with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, through the joint working group, potential reforms to local taxation. Of course, some reforms have already happened, with the additional fiscal levers that local government now has.”
“I understand that the SPCB’s response to the Supreme Court ruling has been discussed at recent partnership group meetings, and I am sure that trade union side colleagues will continue to use that forum to raise anything further that they consider would be appropriate for the SPCB to do to support its staff. This morning, the corporate body signed off the next phase of work looking at how to improve inclusivity for all those with protected characteristics working at and visiting Holyrood. We will engage Holyrood passholders and external organisations representing those with specific protected characteristics as part of that work. That will inform any further changes and will take account of the Equality and Human Rights Commission statutory code, once it is finalised later this year.”
“Even though we are politicians, our job is not to debate the politics of an issue, but to ensure that we are implementing the law as the law is communicated to us. Having said that, we recognise that the interim stance to fulfil those legal responsibilities is a change. Let me acknowledge on behalf of the SPCB that, for some, that has proved both upsetting and a cause for anxiety and concern for their own wellbeing. With that in mind, managers were asked to immediately engage with their teams to discuss the interim stance, identify any concerns about its impact and support individuals who might be personally affected. It is an on-going process, and our commitment to the wider wellbeing of our staff is embedded in a number of our policies and our management approach.”
“Given that the corporate body is now well aware that it has not achieved its intention of an inclusive workplace, surely it is time for it to think again and rescind that unclear and unfair interim position until a full position can be consulted on properly. Jackson Carlaw: I will make two points. First, it is important to state that the corporate body is not a committee of the Parliament. In committees of the Parliament and in the parliamentary chamber, politicians are able to debate the rights and wrongs of any ruling that is made by the Supreme Court or any other organisation. However, the corporate body is an executive body with legal responsibilities and the personal liability of the members who sit on it.”
“It will exclude us and segregate us in the heart of Scotland’s democracy.” I am also aware that the response to colleagues in the staff union representing staff in the Scottish Green parliamentary group has not addressed the substantive points that the union raised. The union says that the response did not address the lack of initial consultation, the specific negative impacts on trans staff members or gender non-conforming people and the violation of privacy and dignity; nor did it address the criticism of the equality impact assessment and other points. Given that— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Can we get to the question, Mr Harvie? You are well over your allotted time. Patrick Harvie: Yes, indeed.”
“Otherwise, SPCB officials have responded directly to organisations but have respected the confidentiality of that correspondence. Patrick Harvie: In previous discussions in the chamber and in a letter to me, the corporate body has said that it has been and remains committed to providing an inclusive environment. The letter says: “The SPCB’s intention is that everyone should feel welcome and included at Holyrood”. However, the letter from the Equality Network and Scottish Trans, which Jackson Carlaw referred to, demonstrates that the opposite is the case. It says: “this change will make trans people feel significantly less welcome at Parliament”. It goes on to say: “We cannot understand why this decision has been described as one that will bring ‘confidence, privacy and dignity’ to everyone. It will not do so for trans people.”
“To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what responses have been received from LGBTQ+ staff or organisations that it has consulted with, or been contacted by, since the announcement of its interim policy on Parliament facilities, following the United Kingdom Supreme Court ruling. (S6O- 04833) Jackson Carlaw (Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body): The corporate body has received correspondence from five organisations and individuals since it implemented its interim stance on facilities at Holyrood to fulfil its legal responsibilities as an employer, workplace provider, service provider and public authority. The member will be aware of letters made public by the Good Law Project and Scottish Trans, which is part of the Equality Network.”
“Nearly two months ago, the First Minister hosted a summit on opposing the far right and defending democracy. There was a clear message from many people in the room that Governments need to act to address people’s concerns, to restore the public services that we all rely on, to give local communities more power, to tackle extreme wealth and to tax the big polluters that are profiteering from climate breakdown so that we can invest in our communities. It was obvious that, without clear action, the summit would just be another talking shop, but I have seen no meaningful change since then. Since that meeting, what exactly has the Scottish Government done differently, in practical terms, to turn promises into action?”
“That is why I will continue to work with local decision makers, as we have done in the development of the product through COSLA, to ensure that the importance of prevention is recognised.”
“Neil Gray: I recognise, as I did in my answer to Annie Wells, the fact that we have delivery agents with whom we need to work to make sure that decisions that are taken locally reflect the national policy direction that is set out in the documents. I also recognise that we need to continue to support local areas, as we are doing—our local authority partners received a record funding settlement, as did our health boards, this year; those are the funders of our health and social care partnerships. I recognise that decisions are to be taken locally, but, in some of the areas that Patrick Harvie set out, they are not in keeping with what I have set out in relation to the population health or service renewal frameworks, or directed towards preventative areas of spending.”
“The documents land in the context of significant cuts to existing prevention services around the country. Through constituents in Glasgow alone, we learn of cuts to the Glasgow psychological trauma service, the Huntington’s disease specialist services, adult mental health services, Flourish house, the falls prevention programme, counselling at the Sandyford sexual health service, and breastfeeding support from the National Childbirth Trust. Does the cabinet secretary acknowledge that we are already losing successful prevention services as a result of how integration joint board decisions are being made? That will have a human and financial cost in the future. Does he acknowledge that the way that the IJB makes those decisions is democratically unaccountable and needs to change?”
“Richard Lochhead: The member raises the importance of all Governments throughout the world, including the Scottish Government in the context of Scottish devolution, taking into account ethical considerations when it comes to the funding of companies that are partially or wholly involved in defence activities. We urge the UK Government to take a similar approach.”
“Thank you, Presiding Officer. Stephen Kerr: What about my question? Patrick Harvie: Will other members permit anyone else to speak? Yes? [Interruption.] I am someone who would like to see stronger ethical constraints placed on public funding for the arms trade, not weaker ones. Does the minister share my dismay at hearing the defence secretary use what was, frankly, insulting and demeaning language to describe the application of any ethical constraints at all, such as those that the Scottish Government applies currently? Is it not all the more galling when those comments come from a Government that is willing to see arms provided to a genocidal regime such as Israel?”