Patrick Harvie

Glasgow City Council has approved the controversial ‘Go Ape’ development in the middle of Pollok Park. This money-spinning proposal for the Council, to be built in the middle of one of Scotland’s finest public parks, has sparked strong public opposition following a sham consultation exercise. Thousands of people have objected, attended public meetings, or signed the petition to protect the park.

It’s sad to say, but this decision is no real surprise. Glasgow City Council has an abysmal track record in protecting its parks and green spaces, but this time they have outdone themselves. ‘Go Ape’ may be a fun facility in the right place, but the overwhelming public view is that the jewel in the crown of Glasgow’s public parks is completely the wrong place. The strength of local people’s anger about this proposal is clear, but the Labour council in Glasgow is determined to ignore the public mood yet again.

They have permitted attacks on green spaces large and small, and they have earned the resentment of people throughout the city. This time they have picked on one of the most tranquil spots in the whole of Glasgow, and there is no way that the Scottish Government should permit this vandalism. I will be making urgent representations to Ministers to call in this outrageous decision, and to overturn it.

To read more, visit www.savepollokpark.com

Today’s announcement by Scottish Ministers of £15m in support for “sustainable travel demonstration communities” is a drop in the ocean compared to Ministerial commitments to climate-busting roads projects, Greens noted. (1)Patrick Harvie MSP said:

“The SNP are keen to appear green, as this initiative shows. However, they cannot “offset” their decisions to spend several billion pounds on new bridges and motorways with a mere £15m in support for community projects. (2) Either this is pure cynical spin, or SNP Ministers, like their Labour and Liberal Democrat predecessors, are genuinely oblivious to the glaring ironies of their transport policies.

“If the M74 Extension and the Aberdeen Western Peripheral go ahead, two of Scotland’s biggest cities will effectively become “unsustainable travel demonstration communities”, perfect illustrations of all that’s wrong and outdated about the SNP’s thinking on transport.”

Notes

1. See: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2008/03/17083340

2. Second Forth Crossing: £4.2bn. M74 Northern Extension: £445m. AWPR: up to £395m.

So the SNP have published their consultation on replacing Council Tax with a salary tax – one of the major planks of their election manifesto. With Holyrood precisely split on the issue (SNP and Liberals favour one version or another of this idea, while Labour and the Conservatives want to reform Council Tax) the phones have been ringing in the Green office, with many in the press pack keen to know which way we will jump.

Unfortunately for both sides, we’re busy calling a plague on both their houses. Our own policy of Land Value Tax is long held, and I don’t expect to see Green Party members clamouring to ditch it.

But to answer those who claim that an income-based tax is inherently fairer, I though it was worth putting a few remarks on the record.

So why don’t I support the “local income tax”?

It isn’t an income tax. It’s a salary tax. Because other forms of income won’t be covered, the wealthiest people in society will find it very simply to avoid paying, by shifting their wealth into property. Since those at the top will end up paying nothing, a whopping great chunk of the tax will fall on the shoulders of people on more average incomes. So this is a proposal to replace one unfair tax with another.

It’s inflationary. Removing the property element of taxation (Council Tax being property-based) will be bad enough, but when you add in the factor above, with wealthy people spending more money on property for ‘investment’ purposes, those trying to get their first foot on the property ladder will find it even harder than at present. Not that home ownership should be seen as the only legitimate aspiration – I’m a big supporter of social rented housing. But it is a goal for most people, and we shouldn’t pursue policies which make it so much harder to achieve.

It’ll be an administrative nightmare. If it’s set at a national level, Ministers will fall into regular battles with local government about how much tax will be raised, and voters will find it impossible to hold local government accountable for the quality of local services. If it’s set locally, employers will have to deal with all sorts of different tax rates, and people will find themselves receiving big differences in pay from the person working next to them, just because they live across a council boundary. 32 different income tax rates for a small country like Scotland simply makes no sense.

…and that’s even before we resolve our differences with Westminster. It’s not just the well-reported issue of Council Tax benefits – there’s also the collection machinery. Revenue and Customs are answerable to UK Ministers, and setting up an alternative would be prohibitively expensive.

But isn’t the Council Tax unpopular?

Of course it is. It’s a tax! Rates were unpopular. Poll Tax was wildly unpopular. Council Tax is unpopular. You can bet your bottom Euro that as soon as people actually start seeing that 15% hike in their income tax, this will be unpopular too. It would be a real mistake to keep rethinking local government finance in the deluded belief that tax will suddenly become everyone’s favourite thing in life. It won’t, and there’s no point kidding ourselves that it will.

But isn’t Council Tax unfair? Surely that’s the bottom line!

Yes. Unequivocally yes. Looked at in isolation Council Tax is unfair. That’s because we shouldn’t look at it in isolation, but as part of a taxation mix. Most of the tax individuals pay is already in the form of income tax, and many of the people expecting to be better off will still pay income tax under the new proposals (around half of Scotland’s pensioners for example).

What we should do about an unfair tax is make it fairer, not replace it with something else unfair! Making Council Tax benefit and rebate automatic would help, so that people don’t feel they have to jump through bureaucratic hoops to avoid being landed with a bill they can’t pay.

There’s more we can and should do to stop Council Tax hitting hardest on the people on low incomes – but this would be necessary whatever kind of tax we use. At the end of the day, local services must be paid for, and that means some form of tax. Reform must remain on the agenda, but replacing one bad scheme with another is not a step forward.

Mind you, try making that point in the SNP’s consultation – you’ll find the silly tick-box questionnaire doesn’t make much room for reasoned criticism.

Responding to today’s review of MSPs’ parliamentary allowances, the
Green MSPs identified significant problems with Sir Alan Langlands’
proposals, and called for an urgent meeting with the Presiding
Officer. The Greens are the only party not currently represented on
the SPCB, which commissioned the report. (1)

The Greens welcome the end of taxpayers’ support for MSPs’ mortgages,
but point out that other cost-saving opportunities were missed in this
area. Furthermore, the proposals to set a lower value for the work of
regional MSPs and their staff should be rejected, Greens argue, as
being divisive and anti-democratic. Finally, if apparently innocuous
proposals to divide allowances into arbitrary subsections are
accepted, Members will have fewer options to cut costs, and will also
be likely to have to let hard-working staff go.

Patrick Harvie MSP said:

“The proposal to end MSPs’ ability to make personal profit from the
accommodation allowance is the right move, and will be welcomed. But
the rest of the report contains very bad news for MSPs who actually
want to reduce their costs. Members who currently have to use hotels
when they stay in Edinburgh should be able to save money by renting a
room, but this will still not be allowed.

“Furthermore, the Green MSPs have, like Members from other parties,
made efforts to save office costs in order to pay our staff a decent
salary. If this report is accepted we will be prevented from doing so
- separate caps on staffing and office costs mean that the incentive
to cut costs will simply disappear, and we will be faced with a choice
between underpaying staff or overworking them.

“The decision to pay staff of constituency Members substantially more
than their regional counterparts is particularly insulting. Staff
working for regional Members cover a far wider area, but this review
seems to suggest that they are “worth” £17,000 less.  This will
seriously undermine regional Members’ ability to serve their
constituents, and suggests that the review team has fallen for the
divisive and anti-democratic spin that says regional MSPs are inferior
to constituency MSPs.

“These are serious concerns, and I will raise them at the earliest
opportunity with the Presiding Officer.”

Notes

1. See http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/corporate/spcb/index.htm

Criticising CBI chief Iain McMillan’s comments on planning today (1), Greens pointed out that both industry leaders and the other parties have consistently failed to take account of the interests of communities across Scotland. As things stand, any developer whose plans get rejected can appeal, but individuals and communities affected by unsuitable projects have no such right. Greens have campaigned for a so-called “Third Party Right of Appeal” since planning was devolved in 1999.

Patrick Harvie MSP said:

“The CBI is utterly wrong to suggest that the current planning system is slanted against developers. The odds are in fact entirely stacked in their favour: they can appeal decisions they don’t like, while local communities have no such right, however unsuitable an individual scheme may be.

“What’s more, Ministers of all parties regularly intervene on behalf of developers like Donald Trump to usurp planning processes. I cannot understand how the CBI can say with a straight face that this represents a bias against development.

“We agree that the planning process does remain cumbersome and slow, and hard for individuals and communities to contribute to. Parliament recently reviewed planning law, and Ministers should have three main objectives in mind when implementing those changes: to speed up the process, to prioritise sustainability, and to ensure communities and developers are on a more level playing field.

“They must also pledge to stop meddling on behalf of favoured commercial interests, which undermines public confidence in the whole process.”

Notes

1. Iain McMillan is quoted as saying “There must be a greater presumption in favour of development built into our planning system.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7261956.stm

2. See the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/acts2006/asp_20060017_en_1

The UK Government are currently backing plans to build a third runway at Heathrow (1), which would lead to a 180 million tonne increase in Britain’s emissions from air travel between 2020 and 2060. (2) The third runway would also be likely to increase short-haul flights to Scotland - the most recent figures show that almost 15 million domestic flights are taken each year from London’s airports. (3) It is estimated that the construction cost for the runway would be a staggering £13bn. (4)

The Scottish Government must be consulted by law as part of this process, because of the implications such a decision would have for Scotland’s efforts to tackle climate change. Greens therefore today lodged a motion at Holyrood urging Scottish Ministers to put their weight behind the campaign against a third runway at Heathrow. (5)

Patrick Harvie MSP said:

“Decisions made in London about Heathrow will not just affect the south-east of England - Scotland must have its say too. A third runway for Heathrow would encourage ever more unnecessary shorthaul flights to and from Scottish airports, making it even less likely that Scottish Ministers will be able to meet their climate targets.

“The rail network is in desperate need of investment, and £13bn would be much better spent on sustainable transport than wasted on this outdated approach to air travel.”

Notes

1. See: http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/open/heathrowconsultation/

2. Figure from London Councils research: http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/doc.asp?doc=21830

3. Civil Aviation Authority figures: http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP775.pdf

4. See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/11/25/cnair125.xml

5. Patrick Harvie’s motion as lodged today at Holyrood: That this Parliament calls upon the Scottish Government to take into consideration its own commitments to reducing carbon emissions and to promoting sustainable transport when formulating its response to the DfT consultation ‘Adding Capacity at Heathrow Airport’, and, given such commitments, urges Ministers through this consultation to oppose the proposals for the construction of a third runway at Heathrow.

HARVIE IN RACE TO BECOME UNIVERSITY RECTOR

Patrick has been setting out his case to students at Glasgow University, ahead of the election for the position of Rector. In interviews, at meetings and around the campus, Patrick has pledged that he will be

A Glasgow Rector - living and working in Glasgow, Patrick can commit to being available on campus to meet with students regularly

A Holyrood Rector - representing you both within the University and in the Scottish Parliament, Patrick will be able to take Glasgow students‘ concerns to the Ministers who decide the future of higher education, student finance, housing, debt, and a host of other issues in Scotland affecting students’ lives

A Working Rector - with a strong commitment to the role of Rector and a good working relationship with Rectors in Scotland’s other HE institutions

A Rector with a Purpose - working with groups like People & Planet, Patrick will push for the University to improve its record on sustainability, ethical investment and fair trade

“It’s great that Glasgow students have a strong field of candidates this year, as the post of Rector is an important one. It should be more than a political statement - you’re electing someone who will have the job of representing student interests in the University and beyond. A strong turnout at the election would ensure that the new Rector can do that job with the widest possible backing.

“As an MSP, I believe that I can offer more than the other candidates - my colleagues Robin Harper and Mark Ballard have both successfully combined the roles of MSP and Rector in recent years, and have shown that it’s a combination which really works.

“As Rector, I would take an active part in the life of the University, and would challenge the waste of resources which could be better used on teaching. At a time when facilities are being cut, or courses and departments merged, we should be asking at every stage what the benefits are for students.

Housing

“As an MSP, I would continue to work for a better deal on a whole range of services students depend on. I have actively campaigned for the introduction of the Landlord Standard - a simple minimum standard of service which tenants (either in private rented flats or in halls) can rely on, with complaints being resolved without the need to go to court. A landlord registration scheme is in place now but it is very clearly failing to weed out the dodgy landlords, and we all know they’re still out there and making healthy profits at the expense of students’ living conditions. Having experience of being harassed out of a flat in Glasgow, I feel strongly that the Scottish Parliament can and should put an end to this.

Transport

“Public transport too needs to improve to meet the needs of the student population. Extending the student discount to the mornings, providing better information about services, and keeping fares low are all priorities, and my role on Holyrood’s Transport Committee gives me the opportunity to push for progress. In this year’s budget, I helped secure an extra £4M to keep bus fares down in the coming year. Much of the campus could do with far better bike facilities too.

International students

“I’m also concerned that Glasgow’s international students find it difficult to access private sector services like banking. I would work with student leaders to find solutions which the banks or credit unions can put in place to resolve this.

Safety

“Many students have public safety concerns, and we all know that being the victim of crime can have a big impact on everyday life. I’m already helping to strengthen the law on hate crime, and if elected I would also work with Strathclyde Police to explore the idea of ‘third party reporting’, to make sure that students feel that there’s good reason to report offences.

A Greener University

“Perhaps the most important changes we need to see throughout society are around sustainability and moving toward a low-carbon lifestyle. Student leadership has always been ahead of the game, and the students in People & Planet have helped spur many UK Universities into action on green issues, but Glasgow University won’t make real progress to improve its own record until there is stronger commitment from management too. As Rector I would aim to provide that.

Universities have a huge opportunity to inspire commitment to change toward a greener society, so I’m very proud to have been nominated for the post of Rector by People & Planet.

Background

Patrick Harvie, 34, is the Green MSP for Glasgow, and has lived or worked in the west end of the city for over ten years. He is Convenor of the Parliament’s Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, as well cross party groups on Asylum Seekers and Refugees, Sexual Health, Food, and International Development.

He previously worked on the Gay Men’s team at THT Scotland (formerly PHACE Scotland) and was an active campaigner on issues including repeal of Section 28, opposition to the Iraq War, and civil liberties.

Greens welcomed John Swinney’s last-minute moves during today’s budget debate, including the provision of an additional £4m to support Scotland’s bus services, which should keep fares down across the country and protect lifeline rural services. John Swinney also told Parliament today that the tender process for the M74 would now be re-examined given the outstanding complaint to the European Commission. The Greens believe that this development places a significant question mark over the project’s future. In the light of these announcements, the Scottish Green Party has taken the view that the amended budget is now sufficiently improved to allow the party’s MSPs to abstain. However, a greater shift towards public transport and away from unsustainable road-building would have been required for the Greens to support the SNP’s budget.

The following amendments and related concessions have been made by the SNP in response to Green pressure to improve the budget:

1. The last-minute £4m increase in funding for bus services across Scotland, which reverses the cuts proposed in the original budget following Parliament’s support for the Green position last week. This increase should be sufficient to prevent the likely cuts in bus services and increases in bus-fares.

2. The initial decision to include a Climate Challenge Fund similar to the proposals made in the Scottish Green Party manifesto, albeit on a more limited scale, and the £4.3m increase in the budget line which was secured by the Greens through today’s amendments, bringing the total fund up to £8.8m;

3. Ministers’ agreement that future budgets should be carbon costed, and that future policy decisions will include formal recognition of the associated carbon costs;

4. A trebling in the level of community and household renewables investment;

5. Continued ring-fencing of local budgets for cycling and walking as well as the safer routes scheme; and

6. The winding-up of the Air Route Development Fund, which went beyond lifeline routes to the islands and promoted unnecessary internal flights.

Patrick Harvie MSP said:
“The last few weeks have seen tough negotiations on the budget, and the Scottish Greens have secured significant changes from the SNP throughout the process, right to the very end. In a Parliament where every party is a minority, including the SNP, the right approach for all parties must be to work responsibly together to deliver the best decisions possible for the people of Scotland.

“Two weeks ago we abstained because we wanted to keep the budget process alive, and to allow time for the Greens and other opposition parties to work with Ministers to improve their proposals. The progress Robin and I have achieved during those two weeks across a wide range of policy areas is a clear vindication of this approach.

“Today we have abstained because the budget, improved as it is, still does not go far enough in the right direction for Scotland. There are progressive proposals within it which we welcome, but the SNP still put road-building ahead of public transport.

“Scottish Green Party will continue to work constructively with other parties on an issue-by-issue basis to move social justice and sustainability higher up the agenda, and to try and turn around the supertanker of Government policy.”

Following revelations that Labour MP Sadiq Khan had been bugged whilst discussing a constituent’s legal case, Scottish Green MSP Patrick Harvie today wrote to Home Secretary Jacqui Smith (1) to establish whether the so-called Wilson Doctrine covers the work of MSPs. The Wilson Doctrine, introduced in 1966, states that MPs’ phones would not be tapped or bugged.More than 600 public bodies can now ask to see the communications records of any British citizen, and during the period covered by the most recent report on this subject, more than 28,000 applications were being made each month. (2)

 
Patrick Harvie MSP said:

“For an MP or an MSP to be able to represent their constituents properly, everyone must know beyond doubt that their conversations are private. This is particularly true for some of the most vulnerable of our constituents, such as whistleblowers, victims of abuse, or those involved in high-profile legal cases.

“Following the Sadiq Khan case, we can no longer be sure that this is true, which is why I’ve written to Jacqui Smith today, seeking urgent clarification about the application of the Wilson Doctrine in Scotland. Weakening this protection would be one more move towards the kind of surveillance society where even democracy itself isn’t sacrosanct.

“I have urged the Home Secretary to make public any historic bugging of MSPs that has gone on since the establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1999, and also to make an absolute commitment that the Wilson Doctrine covers all Britain’s Parliamentarians. The work done by MSPs, MLAs, and MEPs is just as likely to be sensitive as that of MPs at Westminster, and the same rules must apply.

“Throughout the UK surveillance of private citizens is rife and growing. Comparisons with Orwell’s 1984 are an over-simplification, but the approach by successive UK governments to privacy has been too close to that of East Germany and too far away from the respect they should have for the liberties of private individuals.”

Notes

1. Paragraph 2.4 of Schedule 5, Section 1, explicitly reserves to Westminster “the functions of the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Headquarters”.

2. Figure from Interception of Communications Commissioner Sir Paul Kennedy. See p16, paragraph 58 of his report, published last month, which gives a total of 253,557 applications over a nine month period:

http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/hc0708/hc02/0252/0252.pdf

Glasgow Green MSP Patrick Harvie today urged members of communities who will be affected by the proposed closures of the Post Office Pollokshaws Branch and Westmuir Street Branch to respond to the Post Office’s consultation into the new plans. After deciding not to go ahead with closures of Glasgow branches in Hyndland and Kelvindale, the Post Office has selected offices in the south and east of the city to close instead.

Patrick Harvie said:

“While it is right that the Post Office has reversed its decision to close branches at Hyndland and Kelvindale, it’s unacceptable that it plans to do so at the expense of people living in Pollokshaws and Parkhead. The nearest alternative branch to Pollokshaws is Newlands - almost a mile away. The nearest alternative to Westmuir Street is Parkhead Branch, which is hardly convenient and with no direct bus route. Post Office branches are at the heart of local communities providing a vital service to local residents and businesses. The nearest available alternatives are simply not near enough, especially for elderly people or disabled members of the community.

I’ve written to The Post Office to voice my objection and I’d encourage anyone who will be affected by the proposed closures of Westmuir Street Branch and Pollokshaws Branch to do the same. This may not mean only those who use these branches regularly, as the remaining post offices in the area will be expected to deal with a large increase in customer numbers.”

Harvie also commented on the background for the 2,500 branch closures across the UK.

“The basic reason behind all of these proposed closures is that the UK Government has for years treated the Post Office like a business rather than a public service. It’s time it recognised the central role that Post Office branches have within local communities and local economies and started providing the support they need to carry out their duties.”

The Freepost address for responses to the Consultation is Sally Buchanan, Network Development Manager, Post Office Ltd, c/o National Consultation Team, FREEPOST CONSULTATION TEAM. The e-mail address is consultation@postoffice.co.uk. The deadline for responses is 3rd March 2008.