NEWS RELEASE - Amnesty media awards

‘GLASGOW GIRLS’ DOCUMENTARY WINS TOP HUMAN RIGHTS PRIZE - Green MSP hosts Amnesty Scottish Media Awards

Glasgow MSP, Patrick Harvie, tonight presented awards to leading journalists who have made a significant contribution to the Scottish public’s greater awareness and understanding of human rights issues.

Mr Harvie, convenor of the parliament’s cross party group on human rights said, “I’m delighted to host the Amnesty Scottish Media Awards once again at Holyrood. Politicians often complain about the media, but we rarely praise them when their work is of a high standard. If we’re to create a positive human rights culture, we need journalists and film-makers who are committed to telling the stories of people’s struggle to claim their human rights. BBC Scotland’s Tales from the Edge, which gave the Glasgow Girls the chance to be heard in their own words, is a worthy winner.”

Amnesty International’s Programme Director, Rosemary Burnett, said “We have received an unprecedented number of entries from Scottish journalists this year and have been pleasantly surprised by the quality and output of human rights journalism in Scotland. This year’s Media Award entries highlight the fact that human rights abuses can happen in Scotland as well as other places around the world. The Glasgow Girls film painfully demonstrates the effects of Government policy on the lives of asylum seekers in the UK.”

The Scottish Media Award was awarded to Lindsay Hill for her documentary Tales from the Edge shown on BBC2 on 31 August 2005. The film is a video diary of 4 asylum seeking teenagers in Scotland as their story takes a dramatic twist when one of them is faced with extradition.

The Runner-up awards went to Neil MacKay for his article Torture Flights – the Inside Story, published in the Sunday Herald, Susan Swarbrick for her article Children of the Revolution published in the Herald Magazine, and Lucy Bannerman for Night Terror – The child soldiers of Uganda published in the Herald Magazine.

ENDS
For more information contact the Green Press Office on 0131 348 6360 or 0771 761 8771

Big Issue column - May 18th

There are some MSPs who seem to have a habit of waking up with a random opinion and rushing into the Chamber to tell everybody about it.
They’re easy to spot. Labour’s Duncan McNeil took the biscuit last week during his contribution to an otherwise well-informed debate about the children of drug users. It’s a hellishly difficult subject, and anyone who’s given it a moment’s thought knows that there are no simple or easy solutions. But Duncan thought he had one. Let’s lace the methadone with oral contraceptives, he suggested. That’ll put a stop to the problem.

Aside from the unethical, illegal and barkingly impractical nature of such a notion, and the fact that it throws out the basic principle that contraception should be about women’s right to choose whether - and how - to control their own fertility, I don’t think many of us would want the state deciding which citizens are permitted to breed and which aren’t. I thought ID cards and house arrest were bad enough, but really…

As for this week, we’ll be debating the new Planning Bill (one of my hobby horses) which removes existing rights for communities, in exchange for more consultation exercises. Oh, and Ministers sitting in Edinburgh will be able to impose the National Planning Framework, which may include such delightful proposals as new landfill sites, roads or even nuclear power stations. One a proposal is in there, your chances of challenging it will be severely limited. If you’re the sort of person who calls that undemocratic, the Home Office probably has a Control Order with your name on it.

Not that Jack McConnell will be worrying about getting the Bill through. He’s far too busy courting his favourite billionaire, Mr Donald Trump of tacky telly fame. Apparently forgetting that his job as First Minister is supposed to prevent him from even discussing proposed developments unless he meets all sides, Mr McConnell is in hot water over newly released documents which show that he not only met Trump to talk about his plans for a luxury golf resort in Aberdeenshire, but threw his weight behind the scheme. It seems that Trump’s mother came from Stornoway, and since imported black pudding isn’t enough to keep the memory alive he has decided to come and buy a slice of Scotland for himself. The FM’s support for the scheme seems to fly in the face of the Ministerial Code, which sets standards of behaviour for the Executive. Trouble is, who’s job is it to enforce the code on Ministers? Jack McConnell’s of course.

I seem to have been unremittingly negative this week. So let’s finish with a nervous giggle and a look ahead to my sponsored ‘zip-slide’ across the Clyde in aid of sexual health charity PHACE Scotland. Still not quite sure what a zip-slide really is, but hopefully I will leave from the SECC and find the opposite bank safe and sound. By the time that’s done I’ll have earned myself a drink, and I’ll let you know if I got my feet wet next time.

Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green):

I begin by reflecting on Linda Fabiani’s comment about the importance of the EU, to which several members referred. Most of our legislation comes from Europe. I echo Jim Wallace’s comment about the committee’s output and the Executive’s forward-look document being useful—I certainly found them useful in preparing for this debate.

My consideration of the Commission’s work programme and its impact on and consequences for Scotland leaves me with the feeling that the European Union could aspire to so much more. We should consider what achieving the four key objectives that the Commission has set itself—prosperity, solidarity, security and Europe as a world partner—could mean for a better world.

It will not come as much of a surprise to hear that I, as a Green, would like an attempt to be made to refine prosperity. Green parties around the world have a role to play as part of a wider green movement, which includes people with other political perspectives. There is now broad acceptance of the idea that if developing countries develop in the unsustainable manner in which we have developed, global catastrophe will result. That concept is important not just at a global level but at a European level. As the European Union grows, we must find ways to propose courses of development for the new accession countries that do not echo the mistakes of our past but seek to create a better future for us all. I believe that Scotland would be up for the challenge of such change if we were represented.

I turn to solidarity, which seems implicitly to cover social justice as well as environmental issues, so I will address both. I would love to see a European Commission work programme make a climate stability pact for Europe a priority. Europe can be a world leader on the issue to a greater extent than it has been. It has done good stuff and made good progress, but placing as great an emphasis on environmental issues as is placed on economic issues would be a good start. A climate stability pact, which my colleagues in Europe have proposed, would be one way to proceed to ensure that the EU does not plunder fish stocks not only here but around the world, as we are doing at the moment, often as a result of poorly enforced and monitored agreements leading to continuing illegal fishing and the depletion of fish stocks, which has an impact on rural communities in Europe and around the world.

Security is not an end in itself. If we want to live in a peaceful world, we are more likely to achieve it through justice than through security alone. We can do much at European level to promote fundamental rights. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is a terrific document, but it should be made binding so that all people who live in Europe—including economic migrants, political refugees and other refugees—have access to those fundamental rights. Threats to our freedom come not only from outside—from other countries and groups that are often stereotyped—but from our own Governments. The emphasis on biometrics at UK and European level must be challenged. Such ideas can threaten our freedom.

Another threat is the idea that we need to reform the protection of the media. Copyright has been mentioned, but it is equally important that we reverse the convergence of the media in a few hands—which has had such a damaging impact in some European countries—and do not allow it to be replicated in other countries.
On the issue of Scotland as a world power—

Mr MacAskill: Yes!

Patrick Harvie:
I beg your pardon—I meant Europe as a world power. Scotland as a world power—how about that?
Europe could be at the forefront of reforming the global trading system and introducing robust controls on the trading of weapons, too many of which are used to violate human rights. It could introduce a Tobin tax—a tax on financial speculation—which would prevent damaging economic consequences for some of the world’s developing countries. I would like such ideas to appear in the European Commission’s work programme.

Kenny MacAskill urged us to regard the glass as half full rather than half empty. Scotland’s level of engagement in the European agenda has improved, as has its level of representation in Europe, so, in time—and I am sure that Kenny MacAskill will agree—we should allow ourselves a full glass, and a seat at the top table. That would allow us not only to represent Scotland’s interests in relation to the European agenda but to articulate Scotland’s vision of the Europe that we want to live in. That vision, yes, would be for a better Scotland, but it would also be for a better Europe and, ultimately, a better world.

NEWS RELEASE - More incinerators for Glasgow

GREEN MSP MEDIA RELEASE

For immediate release, Monday 8 May, 2006

GLASGOW OPTS FOR MORE INCINERATION: GREEN MSP VOWS TO OPPOSE LOCAL INCINERATOR PLANS - three new incinerators for Glasgow

New plans for three incinerators in the Glasgow area were today criticised by the local Green MSP as a deceptive and desperate move to meet targets for reducing waste to landfill that will crucially fail to reduce waste production. Green MSP Patrick Harvie vowed to campaign against the proposals, arguing that such plants bring pollution and disruption to nearby communities, and encourage waste production. The Executive has still not met this year’s target of recycling 25% of municipal waste, nor have ministers managed to meet the target for reducing the volume of waste sent to landfill. (1) Glasgow in particular has one of the poorest records on recycling in the country at 9.5%, trailing well behind the best (Clackmannanshire) at 37.9%. (2)

In recently-published documents, incineration is included in 17 out of 20 councils’ Strategic Outline Cases (SOCs, plans for dealing with waste) despite the fact that it encourages waste production and causes pollution. Glasgow and Clyde valley authorities “preferred option” is “Autoclave with gasification of organic fibre”, a form of incineration. The plants will handle a total of 540,000 tonnes of waste a year at Polmadie, Linwood and Queenslie with a reserve site at Sheildhall. The report also reveals plans to expand existing landfill sites and open new sites. (3)

Incineration encourages waste production because plants need certain volumes of waste in order to remain profitable. Incineration wastes useful resources and materials (encouraging further resource extraction and processing), increases pollution (particularly for neighbouring communities), and means that the potential for creating jobs in recycling and waste minimisation is lost.

Mr Harvie said, “The Executive has so far failed to meet its target for reducing waste to landfill but rather than focus more on recycling and waste minimisation, I am appalled that the government is condoning councils that are opting for incineration, possibly the least environmentally-friendly option. That means more waste production, more pollution and more resources going up in smoke - that’s hardly in the interests of Scottish taxpayers and businesses. Communities in Glasgow are now facing the prospect of noise, dispruption and potentially dangerous pollution because their council and the Executive have not worked hard enough to meet the targets. I for one will be opposing these moves.

“This reliance on incineration signals a failure on the part of the Executive to focus on what is key - reducing the amount of waste produced - and will instead result in even more waste production. Until that is effectively tackled, ministers will keep lumbering Scottish people with polluting, costly, inefficient and nonsensical methods of dealing with waste.”

The Executive may be on track to meet its unambitious target of recycling/composting 25% of domestic waste, but Greens stress that drastically reducing the amount of waste produced is the only way to tackle Scotland waste mountains. Greens also pointed out that large discrepancies between councils mean some local authorities are propping up those with very poor recycling figures, and capacity in Scotland for processing material collected for recycling should be maximised. (4) The Executive has not yet achieved a second target of reducing waste sent to landfill to 1.5 million tonnes per year by 2006. Mr Harvie added, “It’s reassuring that Scotland appears to be on track to meet the target, albeit an unambitious target. The key problem remains the volume of waste created in the first place. There is also wide variation across Scotland - there should be no postcode lottery and everyone should have easy access to recycling facilities, preferably kerbside segregated collections.

“Scotland’s management of waste remains fundamentally flawed - only a zero waste strategy that prevents waste being created in the first place will solve both problems of waste and inefficient use of resources. (5) Ministers are also unsure how much of the materials collected for recycling are processed in Scotland, and how much is exported. Maximising capacity in Scotland, and reducing the volume of waste, rather than focussing on recycling figures, is the real key to success.”

ENDS
For more information call 0131 348 6360/0771 761 8771.

Notes

1. www.scottishexecutive.gov.uk

2. www.audit-scotland.gov.uk - See Glasgow City Council - Audit of Best Value and Community Planning, Page 57 paragraphs 204 & 205

3. See p13 of the document found at
www.scotland.gov.uk> www.scotland.gov.uk

From Executive release:

SOCs have been submitted by 6 local authority Strategic Option Review Groups (SORGs). The local authority groups who have submitted SOCs for consideration are:

* Ayrshire (comprising North Ayrshire, South Ayrshire and East Ayrshire Councils);
* Fife (comprising Fife Council only);
* Forth Valley (comprising Clackmannanshire, Stirling and Falkirk Councils);
* Glasgow & Clyde Valley (comprising Glasgow City; East Dunbartonshire, West Dunbartonshire, East Renfrewshire, Renfrewshire and Inverclyde Councils and also Helensburgh, in Argyll and Bute Council);
* North East and Highland (comprising Aberdeen City, Aberdeenshire, Moray and Highland Councils); and
* Tayside (comprising Perth & Kinross, Angus and Dundee City Councils).

Two groups have already been developing more detailed Outline Business Cases (OBCs), which will be published in due course. These groups are:

* Lanarkshire (comprising North and South Lanarkshire); and
* Edinburgh, Lothian & Borders (comprising Edinburgh, East Lothian, West Lothian, Midlothian and Scottish Borders Councils).

Currently, Scotland landfills around 1.6 million tonnes of Biodegradeable Municpal Waste a year.

4. SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT WRITTEN ANSWER - 6 February 2006
Index Heading: Environment and Rural Affairs Department
Shiona Baird (North East Scotland) (Green): To ask the Scottish Executive what proportion of the materials collected in Scotland for recycling is exported for processing.
Ross Finnie: We do not hold this information centrally. However, we sponsor two bodies to help develop markets for recycled products: REMADE Scotland and the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP). REMADE Scotland, working with WRAP, are preparing a report on Markets for Recyclable Materials and Recycled Products in Scotland. This will provide some information on the capacity to reprocess recyclable materials in Scotland and on exports of some materials from the United Kingdom and I will arrange for a copy to be forwarded to you once this has been finalised. However, obtaining full information on the proportion of the materials collected in Scotland for recycling which are then exported is difficult. There is a wide range of materials involved and materials are collected for recycling from commercial and industrial premises as well as from households. In addition, materials that have been collected may be transported from Scotland to other parts of the United Kingdom and may then be reprocessed in other parts of the UK or may be exported from other parts of the UK.

5. Zero waste is a shift away from the current production-consumption-disposal system to focus on: redesign (ensuring everything is made re-usable or recyclable) reduce (the amount of packaging we use) re-use (pass unwanted items onto someone else) repair (fix items rather than buy new ones) refurbish (take care of items so that they last longer) recycle (and compost)
See reports at www.scottishgreens.org.uk

Human Rights Commissioner - speech from debate

Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green):

I have been slightly disappointed by some of the comments that have been made in the debate. My mood changed for the better, however, when Gordon Jackson got to his feet—it would be very welcome if he did so more often. Like Gordon Jackson, Robert Brown gave a clear expression of the value of human rights legislation in our society. Human rights are part of the moral basis of a modern society, and we should not lose sight of their importance. Robert Brown also spoke of the need for a truly independent body. I will go on to focus on the principle of the independence of the body that we need to establish.

Robert Brown mentioned the cross-party group with which he was involved in the first session of Parliament and with which I have been involved in the current session. The organisations that have been working long and hard for a commission to be created are impatient to see that done. They are insistent on the independence of the body and remind us that the issue cuts across all Government departments—it is not just about justice, but about education and health, and it concerns many other Executive departments. I welcome the fact that the minister is prepared to consider what improvements can be made. I think that significant improvements should be made to the body that is proposed at the moment, and I look forward to that happening.

I know that there are concerns about accountability and the precise structure and format of the body that we are creating, but this is not rocket science. We are not dealing with new, insoluble problems that no legislature has ever encountered; we are dealing with questions to which we can find the answers if we only put our minds to it. The question is whether we have the will to do that—and some people do not. As Gordon Jackson reminded us, there are those who would prefer the concept of human rights to be undermined or taken out of our legislation altogether. We should not allow concerns over the precise format of a bill to be used as a pretext for that objective. I take on trust the assurances of members who have spoken about their commitment to human rights as an idea. Today’s vote will be an opportunity for them to put that into practice.

Pauline McNeill:
I do not disagree with much of what Patrick Harvie says; however, for me, the detail is important, and I do not want to set that aside. In giving the evidence that we heard, none of the witnesses ever talked about the role of Parliament, local authorities or trade unions. I cannot sign up to the creation of an institution unless we all agree. Enforcing human rights is not just the duty of the HR institution; it is about working alongside the elected bodies. I have not heard about that so far, and that worries me.

Patrick Harvie:
As Pauline McNeill has pointed out, an HR institution is not the sole defender of people’s human rights. I agree with that. Nevertheless, it is an important part of the mechanism.

Many members have mentioned the legislative process and our responsibility, as MSPs, to pursue that on our own. I am not convinced that that is enough. That is an important responsibility that we have to bear, but it is not enough to see the Executive’s human rights statement on a bill. I do not want to see the Executive’s view every time; I want to hear about the shades of grey. I want to hear the other side of the story. It is not enough to know that the Presiding Officer, who I am sure takes the responsibility very seriously, assures us that the bill, as introduced, is compliant with human rights legislation. I want to hear the arguments from both sides, and I also want there to be an independent voice who will advise me about a bill as it is going through Parliament.

I remember that the provisions of the Family Law (Scotland) Bill, which went through Parliament not so long ago, had been widely trailed and consulted on, especially those on the reduction in the waiting time for the dissolution of a civil partnership or for divorce. At almost the last minute, amendments were agreed to that would have meant that the bill was not compliant with human rights principles. The Executive eventually had to lodge amendments to seek to increase the waiting time for the dissolution of a civil partnership just in case the amendments that sought to increase the waiting time for divorce were agreed to. The process was cobbled together. That shows that it is important that we have an independent voice to help us with our scrutiny of legislation.

Gordon Jackson also talked about the cynical and disparaging language that is used when some talk about human rights. When we use the term “political correctness”, we are almost not allowed to use it without the suffix “gone mad”, and there is a danger that references to “human rights” will go the same way.

I have spoken about some of the improvements that I would like to be made to the bill. We have more time to discuss what those should be. I would like there to be a body that can protect as well as promote human rights. I would like some of the CEHR’s powers to be brought into our commission.

I am very much opposed to the idea that we should roll together the commissioners and the ombudsman. The human rights agenda and the public services maladministration agenda are separate and should remain so. It is not appropriate to lump them all together along with children’s rights and freedom of information, as some members have suggested. They are separate and important agendas.

We should take Alasdair Morgan’s advice that commissioners do not often advise that their own jobs should be abolished, but some Governments would not advise the creation of a truly independent body to hold them to account. We should take this opportunity to create the strongest body to operate along those lines that we can.