NEWS RELEASE - Transport stats published

GREEN MSPSs’ MEDIA RELEASE

For immediate release 20th January 2004

TRANSPORT STATISTICS: EXECUTIVE NEEDS U-TURN ON ROADBUILDING AGENDA

Responding to the Household Transport statistical bulletin published today, Greens claimed that the large number of car drivers who could switch to public transport on a more regular basis, sends a clear message to the Executive to prioritise public transport ahead of roads.

Greens say that these statistics make a strong case for projects like the proposed £1billion M74 PFI project to be scrapped and alternatives such as the Glasgow Crossrail project to be fast-tracked instead. 47% of people who take a car to work said they could use public transport. Over half of those said public transport was ‘inconvenient’. 68% of commuters said they used private cars or vans with only 12% using bus and 3% using rail.

53% said they could not use public transport, many citing inconvenience and lack of services.

The study reveals a serious lack of public transport for pupils going to school with 66 per cent of pupils who travelled to school by car or van saying that they could not use public transport: “no service available” was the main reason given why they cannot do so (given for three fifths).

Green MSP for Glasgow Patrick Harvie said: “The survey points squarely at the need for a rethink in the Executive’s priorities on transport. The first priority should be to provide alternatives and make public transport available, more reliable and more attractive. We keep hearing the rhetoric that over 70% of transport funding is directed at public transport, yet all we see on the ground are minor initiatives compared to the public cash, priority, and emphasis given to road projects. This really is a wake up call for the Scottish Executive to get their priorities in order and drop backward looking projects like the M74 and meet the demands of the public. We need a bit more than PR campaigns; people need fewer lectures about letting go of their car, they need more alternatives.”

Fopr further information contact the Green MSP Press Office on 0131 348 6360

NOTES TO EDITORS

1. Household Transport in 2002: involves interviews with about 15,500 households across Scotland
each year.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/
about_ns/cop/default.asp

NEWS RELEASE - Climate double-talk

GREEN MSP MEDIA RELEASE

For immediate use 19th January 2004

EXECUTIVE ON CLIMATE CHANGE - TAKE WITH TRUCKLOAD OF SALT, SAY GREENS

Commenting on the announcement of a UK-wide consultation on reducing industrial emissions of climate changing gases, Green MSP Patrick Harvie described the Scottish Executive’s response to the most pressing global environmental concern, as not serious and hypocritical.

The Executive publicised the consultation today(1) and called on Scotland’s energy intensive industrial community to respond to it. The hope is that climate polluters in Scotland will play their part in the UK aim of reducing greenhouse gases by 16.3% by 2010. However, the Executive does not have its own Scottish sectoral targets for pollution reduction other than saying it will make an ‘equitable contribution’. Greens claim the announcement today amounts to little short of a smokescreen to cover up the Scottish Labour/Lib dem government’s anti-climate agenda.

Patrick Harvie, Green MSP for Glasgow said: “If the Executive is as ‘fully committed’ to reducing climate emissions as the pollution minister Allan Wilson says, let’s hear some solid emission reduction targets for industry and all sectors to be measured against, just as the environmental NGOs have been calling for over the last few years.”

“We are unlikely to get them of course, because the Executive knows that its actions are running against the grain of their so-called environmental policies. Put simply, it is not possible to pour billions into road-building like the M74 while public transport schemes gather dust on the shelf; it is promoting ever greater car use; it is subsidising ever more air routes with the goal of trebling air traffic; and STILL it is claiming to take climate change seriously.”

“That’s why they’ll never publish sectoral targets for CO2 reductions; it would show up the Emperor’s new environment policies for what they are, contradictory and aimless.”

Notes to editors

1. The Scottish Executive is joining the UK Government in consulting on the UK draft National Allocation Plan. This sets out how greenhouse gas emission allowances will be allocated to operators of installations for the first phase of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS), which begins in 2005. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/pages/
news/2004/01/SEEN763.aspx

Sexual Health Debate (from yesterday)

Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green):

I too generally welcome the strategy and the debate. I’d also ask members to welcome to the gallery some of the members of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on sexual health.

As I am sure I have mentioned before in the chamber, in the time that I spent working in the sexual health field it was not far off a national joke that we had no sexual health strategy for Scotland. It was long perceived as necessary and overdue, so it was terrific to see the strategy. Nobody in the field will argue that such a strategy is not needed. It is also welcome to hear today the Minister for Health and Community Care broadly endorse the strategy. Some of his words in a previous debate, when a statement was made on the publication of the strategy, were perhaps ill chosen; they gave people cause for concern that the minister was trying to distance himself from the strategy, but I am pleased that the language around that changed today.

However, there remain areas where there is a substantial need to improve on what we have before us. As I am sure many members will mention, the main issue is resources. There is a broad feeling in the field that that is a key issue. There must be a commitment early on to specific and substantial resources. There is also the issue of the interpretation of some aspects of the strategy. Much of the strategy requires interpretation by the reader. Although the strategy places items on the agenda, it fails to prioritise them and could occlude the way forward.

Perhaps the implementation of the strategy needs to take account of the specifics as well as the broad sweep. I will mention a few of the specifics then move on to some of the deeper-rooted issues. In particular, paragraph 4.20 places a requirement on national health service boards to work jointly with education departments, but the requirement is not reciprocal. I would be pleased to hear about any existing reciprocal requirements on education departments, but in the strategy as it stands the requirement is only in one direction, which could mean that successful joint working does not take place. There is also vagueness about how we should target specific groups, some of which have been mentioned. The field as a whole is aware that we have not quite got to grips with how we target the sexual health needs of, for example, older people, including newly single people.

The young remain an important target group because if we can influence attitudes to sexual health and well-being from an early age we can make substantial and lasting progress. There is a lack of clarity over how we can ensure that all Scotland’s young people, whatever school they go to, have their rights to sexual health and relationships education upheld, especially given that we have no single curriculum. Religious schools are not the only issue here, but they are an important issue, which it would be wrong to duck. For example, how can a Catholic education service ensure that its lesbian, gay and bisexual pupils are at no disadvantage in sexual health and relationships education if the discredited theory that homosexuality is a disorder continues to be promoted? I am not arguing that there is no possible solution, but I have to ask the question because the answers are not yet apparent.

Engaging parents is also important, as Shona Robison has mentioned, but I believe strongly that the approach promoted by the anti-sex education group Not With My Child must be challenged. This agenda must not come to be dominated by the tiny minority of parents who oppose sex education in principle. We must also challenge some of David Davidson’s comments. Perhaps one of his party colleagues will at some point explain to us whether he would give parents the right to veto resources that endorse equality on that basis. We do not give parents the right to veto anti-racist material; why should we give parents the right to veto material that is anti other forms of equality?

Mr Davidson:

I probably did not express myself very clearly. What I am saying is that parental responsibility means parents being responsible for educating children for whatever they might come up against in their lives. That has nothing to do with equality. It should be the norm. Presumably, most Christian families will bring up their children to recognise that any stigma that exists is not the way forward. I did not say that those children would not receive education.

Patrick Harvie:

It was certainly implied that parents should be allowed to veto resources.

At heart, we must endorse the sex-positive approach. Sadly, however, we live in a highly sexualised society. Aspects of our mass media create a negative form of sexualisation. We must have a positive understanding of what sex and sexuality are in our lives. Lust, as Simon Blackburn, professor of philosophy at Cambridge has recently argued, is still perceived in negative terms. He wants us to reclaim lust as a virtue, not a sin. As he writes,

“Lust has wrongly been understood as the desire of wanton or excessive pleasure. A lust for power is not merely the desire to control one’s own life but to impose power on other people.”

He continues:
“If we associate lust with excess and surfeit, then its case is already lost. But it is a cheap victory: excessive desire is bad because it is excessive, not because it is desire.”

I am sorry that I have not had time to move on to the question of “abstinence plus” — language that is highly problematic and implies the United States-based approach in which abstinence is seen as an end in itself. We must have a clear commitment that comprehensive sex education is the way to go. Abstinence plus is suggestive of something quite different.

M74 costs spiral to £1 billion!

GREEN MSP MEDIA RELEASE

For immediate release 15th January 2004

LABOUR AND LIB DEMS DROP ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT IN RUSH TO BUILD ROADS

- Green MSPs condemn “Who Wants to be a Billionaire?” call to road-builders on M74 PFI

Green MSPs today angrily condemned the Scottish Executive over its plans to put out a public-private partnership tender for the M74 Northern Extension - for between £750m and £1bn.

This cost is now more than twice the maximum price currently being discussed at the Public Local Inquiry and twice the cost of the new Scottish Parliament building.

Glasgow MSP Patrick Harvie reacted with disbelief: “You must be joking! That is astonishing. We’ve been angry for a long time now about the figure we’d heard of £500M, but if this cost is going to double again, it will be quite an unbelievable waste of public money and is beyond the pale. The Labour and Lib Dem ministers are the new anti-environment coalition.

A billion pounds for the privilege of shaving a few minutes off a trip to the airport or the shopping centre is an absolute scandal, and I anticipate sheer outrage at this announcement.”

Harvie added: “We’ve known for years that building the M74 Northern Extension would mean increased congestion, increased pollution, increased ill-health, and increased problems for public transport. We’ve known that it points to the glaring contradictions between the Labour / LibDem Ministers’ words and deeds on transport and the environment. What a magnificent achievement for the Executive: public anger over wasting twice the cost of the Holyrood building, an attack on the climate, dropping environmental justice as a policy and alienating 60% of Glasgow’s population - all in one announcment! On the other hand perhaps this is the Executive finally being honest.”

This announcement comes after an embarrassing week for the M74’s promoters. The case against the motorway began at the Public Inquiry on Monday - with several expert witnesses condemning the Executive’s ‘exaggerated’ claims of economic benefits and their failure to offer any alternatives to the motorway.

Mr Harvie told the inquiry that the people of Glasgow have been ‘excluded, confused and misled’ over the controversial proposals. Speaking today he said “The new cost of this monstrosity is further evidence that the Executive has not been honest with the public. It also shows their utter contempt for the people who’ll foot the bill. 60% of Glaswegians do not even own car. Can somebody please explain how these plans support the Executive’s policy of environmental justice?”

For more information contact the Green MSP Press Office on 0131 348 6376

I’m crap at blogging

I had such good intentions when this site was put together… at two or three diary entries each week, and the odd news release or speech copied from the Parliament’s official record.
Well it now looks like an archive of news releases, with a few odd bits and pieces thrown in. How disappointing.
I shouldn’t really be surprised. I’ve tried keeping a diary from time to time, and I don’t have the self-discipline for that either.

Must try harder.

I didn’t really make any New Year resolutions this year, so maybe that could be a late one - to make better use of the website.

For now though I’m off to write my speech for tomorrow’s debate on sexual health, at which I will sing the praises of lust. A philosopher from Cambridge has been arguing for lust to be rehabilitated as a virtue instead of a sin, and I couldn’t agree more. I’ll copy the speech here tomorrow, but if you want to find out more about the bloke in question, his website is at:
http://www.phil.cam.ac.uk/~swb24/index.html

Night-night.

NEWS RELEASE - M74 again!!

Green MSP calls for M74 referendum

Green MSP Patrick Harvie today called on Glasgow City Council to a hold referendum on controversial plans to extend the M74.

Mr Harvie spoke out after opponents of the proposals began there case against the motorway at today’s resumption of the public inquiry After giving evidence this morning, Mr Harvie said “We are only one day into this inquiry and already various experts have revealed the lunacy of these plans”.

The inquiry heard today from individuals and experts who forcefully condemned the proposals. Mr Harvie began by describing how the public consultation process had been completely inadequate, others then went on to criticise the Scottish Executive’s failure to offer any alternatives to the motorway and the exaggerated claims of economic benefit.

Speaking just after the inquiry, Mr Harvie said “We must have a referendum on this hugely significant issue. To date, the people of Glasgow have been utterly excluded from the consultation process. Although information was made available at very limited times and places, Glaswegians were offered no opportunity to respond to these plans. Contrast that with the current situation in Edinburgh, where there is an extremely high profile publicity campaign on congestion charging taking place”.

Mr Harvie went on “The City of Edinburgh has stated its intention to hold a referendum, following its public inquiry into congestion charging. Glasgow City Council must do the same with the M74. The majority of people in Glasgow do not own a car, they do not want this motorway and they do not want the noise, pollution and disturbance it will bring. Everyone should be given the opportunity to voice their objections in a fair and democratic manner . This road will bring misery to hundreds of people and I am sure that a simple referendum would establish the weight of public opposition.”

NEWS RELEASE - M74 Inquiry

GREEN MSP MEDIA RELEASE

Glasgow people ‘excluded, confused and misled’ by M74 plans, says Green MSP

Speaking at today’s M74 Public Inquiry, Green MSP Patrick Harvie will provide evidence that the people of Glasgow were denied any form of genuine consultation in contentious plans to build the M74 Northern Extension.

“The whole consultation process was a mere charade,” said Mr Harvie today. “Efforts by Glasgow City Council to involve, inform and consult with the people who will be most directly affected by the building of this motorway were, at most, woefully inadequate”.

Mr Harvie is due to speak at the Public Inquiry today, when the case against the motorway is due to commence. He will be joined by an array of expert witnesses, local business owners, residents, campaign groups and other MSP’s who will all criticise the Executive’s plans .

Mr Harvie remains deeply concerned that the majority of people he has spoken to know nothing about the proposed road. “The lack of public awareness on this issue is shocking. The motorway is going to create a huge disturbance for hundreds of south side residents who still know little, or nothing, about these plans”.

Mr Harvie believes that a project as significant and expensive as the M74 Northern Extension should have justified a high profile publicity campaign by Glasgow City Council and the Executive. The noticeable absence of any such campaign, he believes, has severely limited the public’s understanding of the huge impact the road will have on local communities.

He went on to describe the disbelief many people expressed once the Scottish Executive’s multiple roles in relation to the project were explained to them. He said: “Many people are unaware that as well as being the major funder and promoter of this scheme, the Scottish Executive also appointed the Reporters in this Inquiry and will be the final arbiter on the decision. How can this possibly comply with European Conventions on the right to a fair and public hearing for civil cases?”

The Green MSP also intends to demonstrate how the proposals undermine the Executive’s policy of ‘environmental justice’.

ENDS

For more information contact: Green Press Office on 0790 99 33 074