Skip to main content
Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 4 May 2021
  6. Current session: 13 May 2021 to 20 December 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 1646 contributions

|

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Business Motions

Meeting date: 10 December 2025

Patrick Harvie

Having made that comment, I would like the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans and his Government colleagues to be aware that others—not those who want a debate based on doubling down on the fossil fuel industry or chasing the votes of climate deniers—want a serious update on the energy strategy. We want an update to be given not just to the petitions committee, but to the Parliament.

Those of us who want to see an energy strategy that is based on serious climate policy also expect to see that brought to the chamber, although not as a result of a short-term proposal for a debate at the last minute. I think that the entire Parliament expects such a debate to happen in the new year, because the Government will not be able to go into the next election without making clear whether it supports doubling down on the fossil fuel industry or maintaining the presumption against new oil and gas extraction.

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Parliamentary Bureau Motions

Meeting date: 10 December 2025

Patrick Harvie

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. It may have been my hearing, but I thought that I heard a mental health slur from a member who has just chastised other members about respect to others. Presiding Officer, in your judgment, was that language respectful?

Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]

Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 9 December 2025

Patrick Harvie

I do not want to step on their toes.

Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]

Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 9 December 2025

Patrick Harvie

Thank you.

Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]

Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 9 December 2025

Patrick Harvie

I think that other members will come on to enforcement and compliance later.

Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]

Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 9 December 2025

Patrick Harvie

Is that four-nations dialogue purely among your professional colleagues, or are you aware of that happening between Governments, too?

Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]

Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 9 December 2025

Patrick Harvie

Remmy Jones, do you have anything to add?

Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]

Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 9 December 2025

Patrick Harvie

My question is about the consistency of regulation. On the question of consistency between different parts of the UK, one view is that we should generally err on the side of consistency and regulatory alignment, because that is simpler to communicate, it is easier for everyone to understand and it avoids unintended consequences in relation to the movement of people between different jurisdictions for one reason or another. Another view is that it is not good to prioritise alignment for its own sake, and that we should align with something only if we think that it is the right regulatory position. According to that view, we should not adopt a lower regulatory position just for the sake of alignment.

On where such regulatory decisions should sit, there is again a view that, in relation to devolved matters, the devolved Government and Parliament should decide whether divergence is justified to achieve a public policy objective such as patient safety. Another view, which is embodied in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, is that the UK Government should decide, in the interests of market alignment and fairness for market operators, to impose a common approach.

What are your general views on, first, whether alignment between the different jurisdictions in the UK is important? Does it matter? Are there any unintended consequences of such alignment? Secondly, to what extent is the level of divergence or difference that is proposed in this legislation workable and manageable?

Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]

Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 9 December 2025

Patrick Harvie

Are there any other views?

Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]

Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 9 December 2025

Patrick Harvie

The only other point relating to consistency that I—