On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted no.

I am grateful that, in the busy final hours of this parliamentary session, a moment has been found to consider a law to alleviate the suffering of animals.

The true mark of a society is the way in which it treats its animals. The case against greyhound racing is plain to see. The numbers speak for themselves. Since the industry started recording figures in 2017, there have been nearly 4,000 deaths and a staggering 35,000 injuries across the United Kingdom.

The reasons for that are clear. Racing greyhounds at speeds of up to 40 miles per hour on an oval track results in catastrophic injuries and deaths. The dogs slow down as they enter the first bend, bunching together and crashing as they jostle for position. Centrifugal forces pull the dogs towards the outside of the track, resulting in crashes on the fence. Dogs break their legs, break their backs and end up paralysed and with serious head trauma. I am sickened by the images from racetracks that show deaths and injuries day in, day out on social media. It is time that that stops. Today, we have the chance to ensure that in Scotland—if the bill passes.

Even at this late stage, some members will continue to argue that regulation and licensing are the best way forward, but the injuries and deaths are happening mostly under a licensed regime. The industry has had years to reform, but it has been unwilling or unable to make changes that remove the inherent risk to the dogs that are racing. Licensed greyhound racing is simply licensed animal cruelty. As long as greyhound racing is a lawful activity, it will continue to be impossible to prevent suffering under our animal welfare laws.

Yes, absolutely. I thank Clare Haughey for her relentless support for the bill, which comes from a position of experience, because the Shawfield stadium is in her constituency, and she has listened to and seen the evidence first hand. I agree with her that the only way forward is to make racing a greyhound a stand-alone offence in law. Some argue that the last remaining racetrack in Scotland, which is unlicensed, is an exception—a harmless hobby enterprise—but Thornton racetrack in Fife is no different from any other track in the UK. The dogs face the same risks, just with less oversight. There are those who want to see a resurgence of greyhound racing in Scotland. The owner of the Thornton track has stated that, if it were not for the campaign for the bill, he would be expanding and televising races to betting shops around the UK. There would be more dogs racing in more races, more dogs injured and more dogs killed.

The public do not want to see that. More than two thirds of people in Scotland want to see an end to greyhound racing. A spectacle that was invented 100 years ago is now becoming socially unacceptable. Our values have changed; times have changed. The case against greyhound racing has never been stronger, and the international consensus to end the suffering of these dogs is now unstoppable. Just yesterday, Wales voted to ban greyhound racing. Scotland cannot be left behind.

The bill would end greyhound racing on all tracks in Scotland, licensed or unlicensed. It would protect these beautiful dogs from the inherent harms of greyhound racing. I appeal to all members in the Parliament to vote for the bill at decision time tonight. I am greatly honoured to move the motion.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Greyhound Racing (Offences) (Scotland) Bill be passed.

15:07

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes.

I thank the cabinet secretary for engaging with campaigns across Perthshire to protect libraries, and in particular for accepting my invitation to come and visit Scone library at the end of last year. At that event, the Scottish Library and Information Council announced that it would be publishing new guidance on what constitutes the adequate provision of libraries, for which campaigners in Perthshire have been calling for a long time. When can we see that guidance being produced and utilised by councils?

Will the minister acknowledge that this will not prevent people who have committed antisocial behaviour from getting on a bus? It will only mean that they will not have a free bus pass.

It has been seven years since Nicola Sturgeon’s Government declared a climate emergency. That declaration was important. It was a moment of leadership; it was about leadership across Government to accelerate climate action. It was also about the opportunities to drive investment, to create new jobs that have a long-term future, to improve the health of our communities, to make it easier to travel and to live in a comfortable home and to make our economy much more resource efficient. It was never about Scotland going it alone. It was about tried and tested solutions that have been proven around the world. It was about selling the important benefits of transition and leading delivery and change across our society.

When the Scottish Greens formed part of the Government, we worked hard to put that emergency at the heart of the Government’s programme. Our former ministers would acknowledge that that was, at times, not easy, but we secured significant progress. The cabinet secretary has already talked about free bus travel for under-22s and the cap on bus fares, which were delivered by the Greens. There were many more areas of progress but, since we left government, the SNP has gone into retreat on climate action. It has not just lost the narrative on the climate but wilfully given it away.

A form of paralysis has crept in. With powerful lobby groups on one side and the limits of devolution on the other, the Government refuses to move forward. The energy strategy has been buried, the heat in buildings programme has been dropped and the traffic reduction targets have been abandoned. I know that there is disquiet among some on the SNP back benches about that direction of travel.

I was at a hustings last night at which an SNP MSP said that the abandonment of the 20 per cent target was a retrograde step. I agree with that wing of the SNP.

It is easy to set targets, including traffic reduction targets. The hard work is having an action plan that local authorities can pick up on and that we can advance nationally to incentivise people to leave the car at home. That has to be a mixture of measures. It has to be a balance of carrot and stick, including financial incentives and improved public transport. I say to the Cabinet Secretary for Transport that that is what I have been waiting to see over the past three years since we have been out of government and I have not seen it. All that I have seen is a reduction in the target.

Of course, there is always the Westminster Government to blame. Greens are never shy of taking a genuine opportunity to blame Westminster, just like the SNP, but we must build the case for the Parliament to have more powers by acting like we want them and pushing up to the limit of the powers that we have now. The reality is that more than half of the policy levers and programmes in the climate plan are devolved, but the Government is unwilling to commit to using them to benefit people and the climate.

The climate plan should be an ambitious blueprint for a healthier, fairer, greener Scotland, but it is once again being rushed through with days to spare before dissolution. It is farcical to think that this Government—in fact, any Government—would make meaningful changes to a plan as a result of scrutiny from the Parliament at this late stage.

It is clear that the die has been cast for the next five years in the climate plan. In too many areas, I see policies being kicked down the road for the next five years. The danger is that the Parliament will end up in exactly the same position as here and now at the end of session 7. By that point, the target of being net zero by 2045 could be in grave danger because the policies that we all know are needed are still locked in the too-difficult-to-do box.

That said, in the plan, the Government is prepared to gamble on measures such as carbon capture and storage technology, even though it has never been delivered at an effective scale anywhere in the world and is dependent on Westminster action. It is a 12 megatonne gamble, doubling the UK Climate Change Committee’s recommendation on what is possible.

With Grangemouth refinery and now Mossmorran out of the cluster, the Acorn project is in trouble. It is reckless to gamble so much of Scotland’s climate plan on a single project, which investors are walking away from. The UK Climate Change Committee wants to see a contingency plan in case the Acorn project does not go ahead—it has been calling for that for years. The cabinet secretary said last week that it is up to the CCC to advise on a contingency plan. I do not care who comes up with it, but we need the plan. What is absolutely clear is that the Acorn project is a massive gamble.

It is even more absurd that a new gas-fired power station at Peterhead is being baked into a climate plan. If we could do one thing to increase energy bills, worsen climate pollution and make ourselves more dependent on a fossil fuel that is running out, it would be to make a dash for new gas-fired power stations. It is clear that the Government sees a new Peterhead power station as a price to pay to keep the Acorn business plan on life support, but running two gas power stations decades after Scotland is meant to be net zero flies in the face of climate reality.

If the Acorn project does not deliver, the too-difficult-to-do box will need to be opened. A credible pathway for aviation, with demand reduction at its core, a heat in buildings plan that is scaled up fast and fairly, action to help farmers get off the production subsidy treadmill, and a transformation in public transport and traffic reduction must be delivered in the next carbon budget.

The plan features two extremes on heat in buildings. First, there is to be zero ambition and no scale-up in the next five years, with a meagre 30,000 installations, no real incentives for industry to invest and no pathway to expand skills and capacity to deliver. Then, there is to be a vast increase in delivery in the 2030s, which will apparently come out of nowhere. Nesta pointed out in its briefing that a back-loaded plan risks a skills cliff edge with no expanded workforce.

It is as if the Scottish Government wants to make Scotland dependent on gas boilers—and on gas for electricity generation—for as long as possible. If the Government is searching for a social licence for action on climate change, it needs to stop worrying about the Daily Mail and knock on the doors of unions, communities and sectors that are ready and willing to step up. The solutions to the climate emergency are well understood, are tested and are being delivered at scale globally, but the plan before us today does not deliver for people and planet. It must be revised and reconsidered by a new Government if we are to have any chance of playing our role in tackling the climate emergency and delivering the benefits that the plan could deliver to the people of Scotland.

16:02

The European Charter of Local Self-Government (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill is about strengthening local democracy and, as such, I am pleased to be able to play my part in bringing the bill into law.

As the member in charge of the bill, it is incumbent on me to move the motion to enable the reconsideration stage to progress. Although the reconsideration stage is rarely used by the Parliament, I believe that it is a valuable process to ensure that legislation that the Parliament has decided to pass can be fixed and implemented. I will therefore be happy to move the motion in my name.

I thank the cabinet secretary and her officials for progressing the amendments. I also thank key stakeholders, such as the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, for maintaining pressure throughout most of this parliamentary session so that progress was made. As we are getting very close to the end of the session, I am pleased that time is being made available so that we do not lose the opportunity to complete the process.

I thank Roz Thomson and the entire team of legal advisers with the non-Government bills unit who have done a phenomenal job in this session of helping members to bring forward what has been a kaleidoscope of legislative proposals.

I also thank Andy Wightman, who was the original member in charge of the bill in the previous session and the driving force behind making the policy law. This is a somewhat unique situation, in that it is, I believe, the first reconsideration stage involving a member’s bill at Holyrood. Given that Mr Wightman was not returned in session 6, it fell on me, as the additional member in charge, to bring the bill back.

I would have liked to have moved to this point earlier in the session. The Supreme Court ruling was made in 2021 and it has taken until now for there to be something approaching agreement between the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments on the scope of amendments and for reconsideration to be scheduled. My approach all along has been to hold open a space for the bill to be fixed and, although I could have moved to reconsideration earlier in this session of Parliament, the issue has, at its core, been one for Governments to resolve by mutual agreement and I am pleased that they have now reached that point.

It might be helpful in informing this final debate on the bill if I briefly highlight some of the contributions to the consultation held by the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee.

The Law Society of Scotland observed that

“the draft amendments are complicated and illustrate the way in which provisions must be drafted to address the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the effect of section 28(7) of the Scotland Act 1998”

and acknowledged that

“the effect of the amendments is to narrow the scope of the Bill and accordingly limit its practical impact.”

COSLA focused on what the remaining policy in the bill could mean, arguing that

“The passing of the Bill to incorporate the European Charter of Self Government into law is a huge opportunity for national and Local Government to work together to improve lives across the country, and give Scotland’s communities rights that are already commonplace internationally.”

It went on to say that

“Council Leaders from across Scotland have already unanimously supported the passage of the bill and are supportive of the proposed amendments to address the Supreme Court ruling.”

With all those proposed amendments now debated and agreed to, the bill is, in my view, ready to be approved and to go forward for royal assent.

Finally, Professor Chris Himsworth summed up the overall situation well in my view, stating in his consultation response that he was

“very pleased to see that, in the light of all that has happened since the final passing of the Bill, it has been revived and is now once again on track to reach the statute book”

and that

“although the Bill offers no silver bullet, it has the capacity to contribute to better central-local relationships”.

I hope that that is something that we can all agree on, and I look forward to members’ contributions to the debate.

That the Parliament agrees that the European Charter of Local Self-Government (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill be approved.

16:22

Absolutely. The bill raises questions about where we are now regarding our levels of Government and responsibility. Those questions can be opened up if there is a cross-party consensus in future sessions of the Parliament.

Given that Scotland—and the UK—is one of the most centralised democracies in Europe, it will take time for the bill to empower communities. However, going forward, I hope that the bill will provide a strong basis to do so. If we approve the bill tonight, Scotland will be the first country in the UK to be in compliance with the charter. Being a normal European country that respects communities would feel like progress.

Several members talked about the Verity house agreement. Alexander Stewart referred to some of the frustration that council leaders have at the moment with the agreement’s implementation, and Mark Griffin talked about on-going financial challenges. We will not talk about where those financial challenges originate from, which is Westminster. Fulton MacGregor highlighted some of the progress that has been made.

I hope that we can agree that there is a need to ratchet up the reforms. The bill will not give courts the power to declare whether the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, for example, is compatible with the charter. That is regrettable. However, if the 1973 act were to be repealed and re-enacted by the Parliament in the future, it would need to be in line with the charter and the important principle of local government empowerment. The window is open for further reform and the bill provides the foundation on which future ambition can be built, if there are the political will and consensus to do that.

I welcome that the cabinet secretary wrote to me ahead of the reconsideration stage. She said:

“In time, it may also be possible to bring more of Ministers’ functions within the scope of the section 2 compatibility duty, for example, if UK Act provisions in devolved areas are re-enacted in Acts of the Scottish Parliament or a mutually acceptable solution can be found to the issues around s.28(7) of the Scotland Act.”

It is now for the next Scottish Government to take those opportunities.

The Supreme Court took a view of section 28(7) of the Scotland Act 1998 that surprised many people. As Professor Chris Himsworth said:

“It was, for most commentators, I believe, wholly unexpected and constitutionally shocking. At the very least, it has given rise to great uncertainty.”

That perhaps speaks to some of the reasons why it has taken so long to bring the bill back to the Parliament for reconsideration.

There is clearly work to do, and reform of the Scotland Act 1998 should be on the table. The cabinet secretary has referred to some of the academic thinking about that, which needs to be taken seriously.

I will leave the last words to COSLA, which has campaigned for this bill for years. It said:

“We believe that there are … key reasons why Scotland should incorporate the Charter … It would improve the outcomes that national and local government can deliver … It would give Scottish communities rights that are already commonplace internationally … It would build partnership working into Scotland’s governance for the first time … It would ensure that Scotland fully complies with international treaty obligations”,

and it would

“Help give Local Government the powers it needs to deliver lasting, meaningful change for our communities.”

It is time to hit the reset button and finally get the European Charter of Local Self-Government (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill into law.