A billion pounds used to be a lot of money

The reaction to the UK budget has been largely predictable – Tories claim ownerships of the bits they like, and add a demand for more cuts; the Nats decry another £400m in alleged cuts to Scotland; and Labour at Holyrood speak in glowing terms of the goodies being bestowed by a bountiful Chancellor.

And yes, perhaps my own complaint of missed opportunities was just a wee bit predictable too. But hey, I stand by it. Here’s one example.

The decision to privatise yet another list of public assets to put a billion pounds into a ‘Green Investment Bank’ has been welcomed by many, but it amounts (by Scottish standards) to about five miles of urban motorway, or rather less than half a road bridge! The other billion is being sought from the private sector, and will probably only materialise if the new bank invests in things the private sector already likes the look of.

Better than nothing? Well yes, but how much better would it have been to simply clean up the banks we already own like the Royal Bank of Scotland and others, and force them to take their money – which is to say our money – out of tar sands, out of oil extraction, out of coal power, and start putting it into the clean technologies of the 21st century instead? That’s the real opportunity which the Labour Government could have taken, even at this late stage.

These banks are already ours, and are in control of far greater sums than a billion or two. It’s time they were made to use their lending and investment muscle to serve the common good.

News release – another budget of missed opportunities

LABOUR’S BUDGET “A CATALOGUE OF MISSED OPPORTUNITIES”

Today’s pre-election Budget represents Labour’s last major missed opportunity of this administration, the Green MSPs today argued. Moves towards a “green investment bank” are backed up by a tiny fraction of the money that was used to refloat the existing failed banking system, (1) and the failure to move towards a Tobin Tax, or the similar ‘Robin Hood Tax’, means this measure is now off the agenda for the medium term.

Similarly, Labour Ministers could have reformed the tax and benefits system to make them fairer and less bureaucratic, and to end the scandalous situation which sees the poor paying a higher proportion of their income in tax than the richest in society. Greens argued that the decision to phase out tax credits for the wealthy shows Labour’s private guilt about the inequality they have presided over, but will do nothing to end it.

Patrick Harvie MSP said:

“The Chancellor has made a big noise about the proposed green investment bank, but less than a quarter of a penny has been allocated to it for every pound put into bailing out the banks last year. Labour’s priority remains the same: to refloat the same old failed model rather than trying to turn the economy round. They simply do not understand the opportunities that now exist to green the economy, to support jobs that can be sustained for the longer term.

“Similarly, Labour’s plan is to wait for everyone else to act before they bring in a tax on speculators. Presumably the Chancellor has been spooked by the usual City threats that everyone in financial services will leave the country. This is a bluff and always has been.

“Today’s Budget could have been a landmark for Gordon Brown’s administration, but they have failed this final test of their vision, leaving a catalogue of missed opportunities as their legacy. They could have delivered an end to the benefit trap, ensuring work always pays, or a national insulation programme capable of ending fuel poverty and cutting household bills across the country. They could have abandoned some of their most expensive and immoral projects: Trident replacement, ID cards, or foreign wars. But no, it’s business as usual as their government goes down the plughole.

“Labour have had thirteen years of chances to change Britain, to reform politics, to shift the economy towards the needs of the public and the planet, and to build a freer country. They have failed, and they may never be invited to try again.”

Notes

1. See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/

It’s been a long time coming, but…

GREEN LAW ON HATE CRIMES COMES INTO EFFECT

Today Patrick Harvie MSP’s Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice) (Scotland) Act 2009 will come into effect, extending the principle of statutory aggravations to cover grounds of hatred based on disability, sexual orientation and transgender identity.

Statutory aggravations, which empower courts to hand down a tougher sentence for the same crime, rather than introducing any new offence, are already in force for crimes motivated by religious or racial hatred. This Act is the first piece of Green legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament, and was supported by Scottish Ministers through the “handout bill” process. (1)

Patrick Harvie MSP said:

“From today, perpetrators of hate crimes against disabled and LGBT Scots will be put on notice. Courts can now take account of the true nature of their crimes when sentencing, and the police will be gathering data to see how effectively these offences are being tackled.

“Personally, I am also delighted to see Scotland’s first Green-initiated legislation go onto the statute books, and I have been pleased to work very closely with the Scottish Government on the issue. Both Ministers and civil servants have clearly shared my desire to eliminate these offences which divide communities and blight lives.”

Kenny Macaskill MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Justice, said:

“There is no excuse for any form of hate crime; it is simply not acceptable and it will not be tolerated. When it does happen, victims must have the confidence to report it, confident that they will receive a good level of service from the police and other agencies.

“That is exactly why we’ve got this new legislation coming into force which will rightly put these kinds of crimes on the same footing as racist incidents. This sends out a strong message that hate crime against LGBT and disabled people will not be tolerated. These kinds of measures are absolutely crucial, but we also want to tackle the root causes of the prejudice and discrimination which underpins bullying, or hate crime towards LGBT and disabled people.

“We want to exceed the requirements of the anti-discrimination legislation, and to develop proactive policy and practice which actively promotes equality and inclusion for LGBT and disabled people in Scotland. This aspiration is based on a fundamental belief in the value of equality for all of our country.”

Notes

1. See: www.scotland.gov.uk

Video – climate change debate

On Thursday, Parliament’s debate on climate change resulted in a great victory against coal power – my amendment opposing the proposed Hunterston power station was agreed by 66 votes to 26. Here are my opening and closing speeches from that debate:

Greens win vote against coal power

Last night’s vote against the new coal-fired power station which “Ayrshire Energy” (a euphemism for Peel Holdings) are promoting at Hunterston was an important victory. For much of the day it was unclear what the Labour Party or the SNP backbenchers would do (Ministers being unable to vote on a live planning application). But in the end we not only won the vote on a Green amendment (to a Labour motion on climate change, ably put forward by Sarah Boyack) we also secured an absolute majority in Parliament.

What does this mean? Ministers will argue that it can’t prejudice their planning decision, and in strict legal terms they would be correct. But the political weight is clearly now against this project.

It’s doubtful that Peel really have the cash to develop. But even if they do, there’s no support for the scheme. I invite them to withdraw, and save everyone the time and money.

Though the project currently has “national development” status, having been included in the National Planning Framework, a judicial review was already likely. This could be a test case. Parliament has agreed the NPF, but has now explicitly rejected a specific element of it. Can that really confer any meaningful legal status? Of course not, if the democratic will means anything.

Is new coal dead? I’d like to say yes – the clear position is that carbon capture and storage is in real doubt as an option – both the capture and storage elements have their problems, and nobody has a clear solution yet. I fully support more research – I want to know if CCS can be made to work. But I don’t know the answer yet. Nobody does. And without that answer it is utterly irresponsible to approve new coal-burning capacity.

Parliament today agreed, and I think that bodes well.

Offering asylum is a privilege not a burden

Hundreds of people gathered at the Red Road flats this morning and marched to the city centre, following the tragic events of last weekend when three asylum seekers jumped to thier deaths from the 15th floor, having been told that their application had been refused.

There was a mixture of emotions of course. There was grief, shock, upset. There was shame from many of us at the conditions which asylum seekers live in, and of course there was the fear and vulnerability that many asylum seekers live with on a daily basis, but which was brought into sharp relief today.

But there was also anger. The UK government has appeared determined to operate a sham of an asylum policy for years now, with values imported from a Daily Mail editorial. It’s often little more than a human stocktaking exercise, and as a Wesminster committee heard recently from a whistle-blower, it suffers from shocking levels of instituional racism.

Asylum is not a privilege for us to bestow, some favour which we may grant to those we choose. Rather it is a privilege which we enjoy – we are the ones able to offer refuge to those who need it. We’re not the ones to need to ask for the protection of strangers. We’re the lucky ones.

An asylum policy which recognised this would have compassion at it heart. It would be less concerned about “letting in” a few undeserving cases and more concerned with ensuring that no-one should be sent back to the threat of persecution or death. It would provide the same standards of legal representation, health care and economic rights that our own citizens enjoy.

Sadly, speeches about the system we want to see will make little difference to the lives of the people here today seeking refuge. We can expect little in the way of change from the current UK government, or from any likely replacement. The best that we can expect from the Scottish Government is a fatal accident inquiry, with a remit broad enough to address questions like -

What was the chain of events leafing up to these suicides, and what was the UK Borders Agency’s involvement particularly in the last few days?

What was the status of the asylum application at the time of their deaths, and how was any decision communicated to them?

Was any mental health issue known about in relation to any of the three people in this case, as has been reported in the media?

If so, what assessment was conducted of their mental health needs, or of suicide risk?

Which agency has overall responsibility for the mental health needs of asylum seekers, and are it’s resources adequate to cope with the level of demand?

How does the UKBA determine the support needs of asylum applicants before and after their application is determined, and does it have the right staff to offer that support?

No doubt these would seem strange questions to many a Daily Mail reader. But for as long as asylum seekers are here they are in our care. If this incident had happened in a school, a hospital, a care home, even in a prison, these are the questions we would be asking.

The Lord Advocate has the power to call a fatal accident inquiry, if she believes that the circumstances give rise to serious public concern. Every letter or email she receives in the next few days will help her to see the public concern which exists. Please add your voice.

High speed rail hits the buffers in Brum

How amusing to see the very silly post from John Prescott this afternoon, trying to persuade us all that high speed rail “can only be delivered” by Labour.

This follows of course from the publication of a proposal for a high speed route which will stretch all the way from London to… Birmingham.

Labour have continually fudged the question of why they support high speed rail. There is no shortage of reasons – business connectivity, economic growth, scrapping domestic flights to cut CO2 emissions, and so on.

The trouble is they can’t all be true.

“Connectivity” will only increase if rail complements aviation rather than replacing it. Emissions will only be cut if the reverse is true. Domestic flights will only be cut if we’re squeezing the airports at the same time, not building a third runway at Heathrow.

With the choice of a route to Birmingham, and extensions further north only likely years or decades later, the game is up. The train service between London and Birmingham is already well below the “magic” three hour mark which it is argued will prompt the switch to rail. The number of flights between the cities is of course tiny. This is about adding capacity, plain and simple. Emissions from aviation plus emissions from high speed rail does not add up to make a cut.

Labour have given up the pretence of an environmental justification for this project, which is a disgrace given that a properly designed Scotland-London service could help make short haul aviation obscelete.

Not that I have a huge amount of sympathy for anyone who thinks that their attendance at that London meeting is so utterly crucial, but still not quite important enough to spend four and a half hours on the train. Any government that wanted to shift those journeys out of the skies could do so right now; all they need is a vaguely rational rail fare structure and the nerve to start squeezing the airlines.

That’s an approach I’m sure won’t be “delivered” by Labour, Tories, Liberals or Nats.

Comments policy

As I mentioned recently I’ve been increasingly aware that I need a comments policy, now that I’m (occasionally) blogging. My blog posts and other updates do generally accept comments, but I’ve no intention of allowing the site to become yet another online repository for conspiracy, nonsensical argument, personal insults, or just general bad manners. If that’s your style, you already have vast territory of the net to play in. So here are the rules I’ll be using:

1. All comments are moderated. This will mean a short delay before your comment appears – a long delay probably just means I’m doing something else important like sleeping.
2. Feel free to challenge me or disagree with what I’ve written, but do so with a proper argument. If you’re just being shallow, offensive or generally arsey, do it somewhere else.
3. It’s OK to still disagree after a discussion – please don’t keep posting the same argument over and over again once the point has been made and replied to. If a debate develops then it may live. If it stagnates, I will simply kill it off.
4. Be constructive. Try to respect other views. Niceness isn’t a dirty word.
5. Don’t make allegations against other people who aren’t here to defend themselves.
6. At the end of the day it’s my ball and we’re in my yard. :-)

NEWS RELEASE – Greens slam SNP over threat to BBC

The Scottish Greens today called on Alex Salmond to withdraw his party’s threat to the BBC’s public service broadcasting. Revelations today that his party may use decisions around party leaders’ debates to justify such a move will cause serious public concern about both the future of the BBC and the irresponsibility shown by SNP, Greens argue.

Patrick Harvie MSP said:

“No serious political party would overturn its entire broadcasting policy because of a single programme decision they didn’t like. We’ve had our objections to the BBC’s political decisions in the past – for instance, Nick Griffin was invited onto Question Time after less than six months as an MEP, yet after more than ten years of election success at Holyrood not one Green MSP has ever had the same invitation.

“Nevertheless, politicians in this country should be grateful to have a broadcaster of the BBC’s quality, even when we don’t support every decision it makes, and we should be committed to supporting it and improving it instead of trying to knock it down. This is also the worst possible time for the SNP to have chosen, effectively allying themselves with the forces lurking in the wings who want to gut the BBC for their own political and commercial advantage. The First Minister must today distance himself from this approach.”

Notes

1. See: http://thescotsman.scotsman.com