Letter to Herald - relationships
Posted on September 30, 2003IN all the letters, e-mails, and face-to-face conversations I’ve had since the issue of civil partnerships came up, not one single person has complained that they feel their own relationship would be denigrated, ignored, or in any way undermined by the granting of recognition to other people’s relationships. What I do hear and read is a more generalised complaint from a small number of people who seem angry that their kind of relationship might not be seen as superior by others.
The Rev Kenneth R Brown (Letters, September 29) argues in this vein that “acceptance of same-sex relationships as a valid form of lifestyle has never been properly considered”. It is certainly considered most seriously by the people who have a real stake in the issue – the people in those relationships. For far too many of them, when learning to understand themselves and their sexual identity, attitudes like those expressed by Mr Brown still cause them fear, guilt, and a lack of self-worth. The resultant statistics on mental and emotional health, self-harm, suicide, and attempted suicide among young lesbian, gay, and bisexual people are truly shocking.
I am frankly disgusted by the suggestion that loving relationships could be considered not to be “valid”. Valid?!
If Mr Brown seriously believes that legal equality is an assault on the human rights of heterosexuals, I invite him to contact me in my capacity as convener of the Scottish Parliament cross-party group on human rights, and we’ll go through the ECHR together with a fine toothcomb, searching for the line affording him the right to arrogance and moral superiority.
Patrick Harvie, MSP, The Scottish Parliament.
PQ on planning
Posted on September 25, 2003In the Lab/LibDem Partnership agreement, a commitment was made to consult on new rights of appeal in planning cases. This suggets the possibility of Third Party Right of Appeal, something which many campaign groups and NGOs have called for over many years.
Briefly, the planning system is weighted in favour of developers, who can appeal a decision which goes against them. People or campaign groups objecting to a planned development, for environmental reasons in many cases, are denied this right. If the planning permission is granted they are unable to appeal it.
In Question Time today I asked when the consultation would begin. Mary Mulligan (deputy Communities Minister) answered, and Pauline McNeill MSP came in with a second supplementary:
Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green):
To ask the Scottish Executive when it will consult on proposed new rights of appeal in planning cases. (S2O-503)
The Deputy Minister for Communities (Mrs Mary Mulligan):
We announced in our white paper, “Your place, your plan”, published in March, that we would issue a consultation paper during 2003. We are still working towards that target and we intend to publish our paper before the end of the year.
Patrick Harvie:
Will the minister tell us whether any assessment has been undertaken in advance of the consultation about the number of applications that are likely to be improved or not submitted in the first place if third-party rights of appeal are introduced?
Mrs Mulligan:
A whole host of issues will be considered in the consultation paper. We have set up a stakeholder group to construct the consultation and to ensure that all those issues are addressed in the paper. That information will be issued when the consultation paper is released.
Pauline McNeill (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab):
Although I support the urgent need for a qualified third-party right of appeal, does the minister agree that there is a need for a comprehensive reform of the planning system, and not only for the third-party right of appeal? In particular, does she agree that there is a need to support local objectors who might be up against the resources of big business and developers? Further, does she agree that there is an urgent need to ensure that decisions in the planning system are clear and transparent?
Mrs Mulligan:
I recognise that a number of people are concerned about the involvement of individuals and community groups in the planning system. That is why we are committed to reviewing the issue and, in particular, the assistance that is given to local community groups. Just a few weeks ago, I announced an additional £50,000 for planning aid, which is intended specifically to assist local groups that are taking part in the planning process. I hope that Pauline McNeill accepts that that is one way in which the Executive can ensure that there is a level playing field in the planning system.
Of course I recycle!!
Posted on September 15, 2003Rumours are flying that I’m committing the cardinal sin of the eco-warrior… not doing my recycling.
Let me set the record straight - I recycle as much of my waste as I can manage. My flat is full of little cubby-holes for plastic bags, cans, jars, paper, cardboard and bottles (distressingly large numbers of bottles). Whenever I can find the time I fill up a holdall and off I trundle to the recycling bins at the back of Partick Safeway.
This scandalous misinformation has all come about because of an interview I did with Holyrood magazine. I thought the question was “do you cycle?” and since I prefer to walk I immediately answered no.
Don’t get me wrong - recycling’s a pain in Glasgow, due to the paucity of bring-sites and the lack of progress by the Council in getting doorstep collections going. But I do my bit, honest!
What’s next… Harvie leaves TV on standby, or Green MSP buys Big Mac? I tell you, never believe what you read in the papers!
Speech from Dungavel debate
Posted on September 11, 2003Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green):
I add my thanks to the SNP for using its parliamentary time to discuss this issue. The debate is long overdue in the Parliament.
In general, the Scottish Green Party’s policy on immigration and asylum recognises that countries such as the UK have significant responsibilities for the root causes of people from many parts of the world needing asylum. We bear a moral duty to those people. We should be happy to welcome them, whether they choose to stay here only until their home countries are safe again or whether they choose to make a new life and home here and contribute to our culture and society. On that basis, we support the statement from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees that persons under the age of 18 should not be detained. We give our whole-hearted support to that position and the current operation at Dungavel is, therefore, to be condemned.
I had hoped to lodge a more constructive amendment that would have added to the SNP’s position, recognising that voluntary organisations, churches and individuals throughout Scotland are already working - often quietly, of their own accord and without recognition - to support refugees and asylum seekers. The capacity exists among such organisations to provide an alternative that is superior in every regard, and they recognise the benefits that can come to cities such as Glasgow. New life and energy are put into schools when asylum seekers’ children participate. New life and energy are put into voluntary organisations when asylum seekers choose to volunteer, broadening the scope and depth of understanding of different experiences of life that our voluntary organisations can gather. Those benefits should be welcomed and encouraged.
We must decide which, if any, of the amendments that are before us improves on an already strong and clear motion. Annabel Goldie’s amendment correctly identities an inadequate and ineffectual policy on asylum, but I doubt that her idea of an adequate and effective policy would be similar to mine. To offer profound regrets without suggesting solutions or ideas is, itself, inadequate.
Robert Brown’s amendment certainly contains a lot more material than the motion; however, that is not a real advantage. The amendment’s reference to the reports by HM Inspectorate of Prisons and HM Inspectorate of Education is welcome. However, as we have heard, the ministers of the Scottish Executive - who can take no action or even express a view on reserved matters - have been holding secret talks to address the concerns that are raised in those reports. Robert Brown’s amendment also refers to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. However, that perspective is implicit in the motion’s call for a simple end to the detention. That is, as I have mentioned, the UNHCR’s position and that of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.
Robert Brown’s admission that he regards the taking of a moral stance as a knee-jerk reaction dismayed me, and I hope that he will find time to reflect on his speech later.
Finally, the convoluted call for action by Her Majesty’s Government at the end of his amendment fails to express the strength of the views, feelings and wishes of members from many parties.
That leaves Elaine Smith’s amendment, which at least addresses the issue - the detention of children. The amendment also refers to the families of such children. We would not, of course, support the separation of children from their families as part of an asylum policy. I think that the call for the Executive to engage in communications to seek an end to the practice is not an improvement on a call for an end to the practice. However, I am ambivalent about supporting Elaine Smith’s amendment. I will listen to other speeches. I hope that members from all parties will vote with their conscience.
Elaine Smith: (Coatbridge & Chryston) (Lab)
The amendment clearly states:
“seek to end the detention of children and their families at the centre”.
I hope that Mr Harvie will accept that that is what the amendment means.
Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green):
I have read all the amendments carefully and I will listen carefully to all the speeches from all sides.
We know that members from many parties would have an end to the detention of children, full stop. Therefore, whatever amendment members decide to support, I ask them to vote with their conscience and send a clear signal…
Johann Lamont (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab):
Will the member give way?
Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green):
No.
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
The member is nearly finished.
Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green):
I ask members to send a clear signal by supporting the motion, whether amended or not by Elaine Smith’s amendment. I ask members to vote with their conscience and call for an end to the detention of children.
NEWS RELEASE - Sewell motion confirmed
Posted on September 10, 2003GREENS SAY EXECUTIVE FAILING SCOTS COUPLES OVER CIVIL PARTNERSHIPS - WILL PRESS ON WITH BILL
Following the Scottish Executive Cabinet decision today to allow Westminster to legislate for Scotland on the registration of civil partnerships, the Scottish Green Party said the Executive had passed up a significant opportunity to ensure new civil partnerships laws would be properly applied in Scotland and to allow rights and responsibilities for mixed-sex (opposite-sex) couples as well as same-sex couples.
The Greens pointed out the proposals for Westminster only covered couples of the same sex. As they want the partnerships of mixed-sex couples to be recognised in law, they said their proposed bill covering all couples would remain at least until the Executive guaranteed rights would be extended to all couples that wanted them.
The Greens also point out that Westminster could not properly scrutinise civil partnerships from the perspective of Scots law and also that the mechanism used to enact Westminster legislation in Scotland – a Sewell motion – would not allow the complex area of law to be properly scrutinised in the Scottish Parliament.
The Greens said by not having sufficient courage to face the issue, the Executive may only be storing up trouble for the future. Any anomalies in the Westminster legislation would probably require legislation in Scotland, through the forthcoming Family Law Bill.
Proposer of the Greens’ bill on civil partnerships MSP Patrick Harvie said;
“I am are extremely disappointed at the Executive’s decision to pass up the opportunity of recognising all Scottish couples, gay or otherwise, in Scots law.
“The civil partnerships Bill I am proposing would address the rights of all couples who wanted them and would do it in Scotland.
“There’s been a lack of political courage here, and the result is the Executive are failing Scots couples. If they feared political fallout, there may be even greater problems in store because the laws passed in Westminster may not be right for Scotland and could need Scottish legislation to fix them.
“For the Executive to say they have better things to do is just a cop-out. If they didn’t want to do it themselves they could have supported the Green Party’s bill.
“Westminster is not the best place to pass laws on devolved matters such as the rights of Scots people. I will keep my bill on the books as long as there is a possibility of legislating in the Scottish Parliament for all couples.”
EDITORS NOTES:
1. Yesterday the Equal Opportunities Committee of the Scottish Parliament today agreed to take evidence on the issue of Civil Partnerships, the issue raised by Green MSP Patrick Harvie through his proposed Members Bill. Committee Members also expressed the need for legislative scrutiny here in Scotland rather than leaving the issue to Westminster to decide. The prospect of a Sewell motion - effectively permitting Westminster to legislate for Scotland on this highly complex area of family law - was met with concern by several members of the committee.
2. Patrick Harvie’s bill proposal reads: ‘Proposal for a Bill to establish civil partnership registration available to couples in committed relationships, and to provide civil registered partners with legal protection, rights and responsibilities similar to those provided to married couples. Further information on the Green Bill can be found at www.patrickharviemsp.com
3. Westminster’s consultation document, “Civil Partnership: a framework for the legal recognition of same-sex couples” proposes a system for same-sex couples only. This ’segregated model’ contrasts with the ‘inclusive model’ supported by most Scottish campaign groups and by the Scottish Green Party. The Westminster document is available at:
http://www.womenandequalityunit.gov.uk
/research/index.htm#civilpartnerships
CONTACT: Steve Burgess, 07887 682 574
/Release ends
NEWS RELEASE - Civil Partnership
Posted on September 9, 2003CIVIL PARTNERSHIPS BILL MOVES UP PARLIAMENTARY AGENDA
The Equal Opportunities Committee of the Scottish Parliament today agreed to take evidence on the issue of Civil Partnerships, the issue raised by Green MSP Patrick Harvie through his proposed Members Bill. Committee Members also expressed the need for legislative scrutiny here in Scotland rather than leaving the issue to Westminster to decide.
The prospect of a Sewell motion - effectively permitting Westminster to legislate for Scotland on this highly complex area of family law - was met with concern by several members of the committee. Most campaigners in the field, including the Greens, have also been arguing for legislation to be passed here in Scotland, and are urging the Scottish cabinet to commit to bringing forward their own bill.
Patrick Harvie, Green MSP who has lodged a Member’s Bill Proposal on this subject, has welcomed the Committee’s decision:
“The committee’s discussion today was well-informed, and it was encouraging to hear that its members are aware of the difficulties which a Sewell motion might cause. This isn’t what Sewell motions were designed to do, and it would seem like timidity if the Executive uses one to avoid the perceived controversy over this issue.”
Responding to the suggestion that Civil Partnership was a politically difficult issue, Mr Harvie said:
“I believe that the controversy has itself been talked up by people with a conservative agenda. Most people in Scotland have no problem with the idea that couples should have equal responsibilities and rights under the law. This affects no-one’s lives except the couples who choose to sign up, and it extends legal protection to people who are discriminated against under the law.”
Mr Harvie again called for the Scottish Executive to commit to introducing their own legislation, adding:
“If the Scottish Executive will take the lead, I will happily withdraw my Member’s bill proposal and contribute constructively to their bill. The ministers I’ve discussed this with know that Green MSPs will be supportive if the Executive lives up to its commitment to reform family law “for all of Scotland’s people”.”
EDITORS NOTES:
1. Patrick Harvie’s bill proposal reads: ‘Proposal for a Bill to establish civil partnership registration available to couples in committed relationships, and to provide civil registered partners with legal protection, rights and responsibilities similar to those provided to married couples. Further information on the Green Bill can be found at www.patrickharviemsp.com
2. The Executive’s “Partnership for a Better Scotland” includes the commitment:
“We will legislate to reform family law for all of Scotland’s people”.
(Justice section, page 37)
3. Cathy Jamieson, Justice Minister, committed to consultation but gave no timescale, in an oral answer during Question Time last week: “I am keen to ensure that we take account of different views and treat the matter seriously. Members will be aware that the consultation paper that has been issued south of the border has been circulated for comment, as have the relevant parts of legislation that is reserved to Westminster. I will want to proceed with the appropriate consultation in Scotland in due course.”
4. Westminster’s consultation document, “Civil Partnership: a framework for the legal recognition of same-sex couples” proposes a system for same-sex couples only. This ’segregated model’ contrasts with the ‘inclusive model’ supported by most Scottish campaign groups and by the Scottish Green Party. The Westminster document is available at: http://www.womenandequalityunit.gov.uk
/research/index.htm#civilpartnerships
CONTACT: Steve Burgess, 07887 682 574
/Release ends
Letter to Herald - Scottish Youth Parliament
Posted on September 8, 2003The headline to Ruth Wishart’s column today (Monday 8th) hits the nail on the head, and it’s encouraging to see that there’s some space in Scotland’s media for intelligent and sensitive discussion on this issue.
However it’s still the case that almost all the coverage of young people is focussed on crime, antisocial behaviour and disorder.
I was therefore disappointed to see a dearth of coverage of Saturday’s meeting of the Scottish Youth Parliament.
Watching from the gallery, I found the tone in the chamber rather more mature, responsible and sensitive than it is when my colleagues and I occupy it. The MSYPs’ debate showed several advantages over our way of doing things: unconstrained by any party loyalty (which is what MSPs call it instead of ‘peer pressure’) members simply said what they thought; there was no heckling, jeering or abuse; members seemed to feel no need to fill their allotted time - they said their piece and then stopped to give someone else a go.
What some might have taken for uncertainty or hesitancy I took as a sign that arrogance and aggression were thankfully absent. If it is true that the problem with humanity is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt, then I feel fortunate to have witnessed intelligent debate on Saturday morning. It would have been pleasing to see at least token coverage in our national news media.
Incidentally, the SYP was debating an end to the knee-jerk reactions on antisocial behaviour, and the introduction of civil partnership registration. They supported both by heavy majorities.
Written Answers on Open Source
Posted onAt the begining of August I lodged a series of written questions to discover the Executive’s attitude to Open Source Software and some related issues. Below are the answers I have so far received.
Q:To ask the Scottish Executive what its position is on the use of proprietary and non-proprietary document formats where such documents are to be made publicly available and what guidance it issues to public bodies on this matter.
A:Mr Andy Kerr:
The Scottish Executive’s use of proprietary and non-proprietary software conforms to the UK Government’s policy which is described in Open Source Software – Use Within UK Government which was published by the Office of the e-Envoy in July 2002. The Scottish Executive has not issued additional guidance to Scottish public sector organisations although open standards generally are promoted through the Information Age Government Framework.
Q:To ask the Scottish Executive what its position is in relation to the role of open source software in public sector IT procurement and what guidance it issues to public bodies on this matter.
A:Mr Andy Kerr:
Guidance on the use of open source software by UK public bodies, including the devolved administrations, is set out in a policy statement, “Open Source Software, Use Within UK Government”, published by the Office of the e-Envoy on 15 July 2002. In support of this policy, the Office of Government Commerce published a booklet “Guidance on implementing Open Source Software” in September 2002. The Executive has not issued separate guidance.
Q:To ask the Presiding Officer how much the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body has spent on Microsoft software licences for the Parliament’s IT systems.
A:John Scott on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body:
The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate body has spent approximately £449,000 on current Microsoft Software Licences. This includes licences for desktop software such as Microsoft Office and XP, as well as server operating systems, databases and email systems.
Statement on Dungavel
Posted on September 5, 2003Yesterday, after standing up in Parliament to defend the right of Westminster Ministers to run Dungavel as they see fit, Jack McConnell said:
“We have continued to deliver not only housing, but quality education, quality health services, child care and training… to ensure that not only refugees who have come to this country, but those who seek asylum — all those people, who live in Glasgow and throughout Scotland — have access to those services and have an opportunity to be welcomed in Scotland and to contribute to the community. The record of the devolved Government in Scotland in supporting and delivering services to asylum seekers and refugees in Scotland is one of which I am now, and will always remain, very proud.”
How happily I would join him, how proud we could all be, if those words reflected the reality. But in truth, the reality is very different. The reality of detention without crime, the reality of barbed wire, the reality of isolation, the reality of a prison regime inflicted on children, on families, on people who have struggled hard to arrive here, and who do not deserve the inhuman and degrading treatment they receive.
Our basic human dignity is, for me, one of the few things I could call an absolute value. The duty of care which humans have to one anther is something undeniable. To abandon this for the sake of favourable tabloid headlines, at a time when xenophobia, racism and intolerance still scar our culture is unbefitting of a society which calls itself ‘free’, and ‘democratic’.
I’ve not been in our Parliament long, so I don’t speak from great experience. But the mood yesterday was different. As MSPs trooped in and out of the Chamber for Question Time, there was shame in the air. There was guilt. There was anger. We would be wrong to imagine that MSPs in the Executive Parties, and those others who’ve not spoken out yet, are comfortable - they are not.
I’m lucky to be in a party without a whip system. There’s no threat or sanction for me if I was to ever speak against the party line. I’m expected to make it clear it’s my own view… I’m expected to be honest with my colleagues about my reasons, but my conscience is my own. Not all MSPs have the luxury of such freedom. I can tell you that there are politicians of all stripes who feel shame over Dungavel. We must embolden them, we must give them stength to speak out, and support them when they do. I know that doesn’t always come easily across the party lines, but the there’s a real opportunity to make a difference if we can win people over, instead of closing them off to our arguments.
So let’s welcome the news that Labour backbenchers have started to speak out against Dungavel. Let’s also welcome the words of others across the political spectrum and wider civic society in Scotland, such as the words of the Bishop of Paisley, John Mone, when he recognises that “most Scots will feel only shame” at what is being perpetrated at Dungavel. And let us make our own words clear to those at all levels of government in this country - Dungavel must close - your silence cannot continue.
Parliamentary Question on Civil Partnership
Posted on September 4, 2003I asked a question of the Justice Minister, Cathy Jamieson, in the Chamber today:
Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green):
To ask the Scottish Executive how it will address the issue of civil partnership registration as part of its commitment to family law reform. (S2O-345)
The Minister for Justice (Cathy Jamieson):
Scottish ministers have noted the UK Government’s consultation on civil partnership registration for same-sex couples. We are presently considering how to proceed on that matter.
Patrick Harvie:
Does the minister agree that the continuing discrimination in law against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people-and others whose needs are not met by marriage-is unacceptable and that the Executive has a significant opportunity to address it?
Cathy Jamieson:
This is a very complex issue, which will provoke strong views on all sides of the argument. That is why it is important for the Executive to consider the matter carefully, listen to all the interest groups and take appropriate action at the right time.
Pauline McNeill (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab):
When the minister gives the matter due consideration will she consider that, because of the nature of the legislation on civil partnerships-the fact that it crosses the boundary between devolved and reserved matters-special attention should be given to the nature and scale of the consultation and, most important, to how the Parliament might be involved? We know that there are complex issues in different areas of law, such as the law of succession and property rights law.
Cathy Jamieson:
Pauline McNeill raises a significant point. I am keen to ensure that we take account of different views and treat the matter seriously. Members will be aware that the consultation paper that has been issued south of the border has been circulated for comment, as have the relevant parts of legislation that is reserved to Westminster. I will want to proceed with the appropriate consultation in Scotland in due course.
I was hoping that the Executive would have made a decision about Civil Partnership by now, but I can’t say I was surprised by the lack of substance in the answer. The Executive must soon decide whether to introduce their own legislation, use a Sewell motion to let Westminster legislate for us, or do nothing. If they do nothing, I have already made it clear that I’ll introduce my own Bill on this issue.
There are strong arguments against a Sewell motion as well:
this is why we’ve got our own Parliament - to make laws for Scotland here in Scotland;
if the Executive uses a Sewell motion to avoid the ‘controversy’, it will find it even more difficult the next time a progressive issue comes up, for example the sexual health strategy;
Scots law is best written in Scotland - Westminster may do something that’s right for England and Wales, but which causes problems in Scotland;
there’s no guaruntee that a Sewell motion would even pass - many people who support the principle of Civil Partnerships won’t support it.
It was encouraging to hear the Minsiter give a commitment to consult here in Scotland - this is a positive sign that the Executive has not ruled out legislating in Scotland. They’ll have to get their act together though - time is a factor since any moves will have to mesh well with the legislation in Westminster dealing with the reserved aspects.
I’ll be adding a more general update on this issue shortly.
Recent updates
Latest tweets