Chamber and committees

Given that my amendment 238 is consequential to the amendments that I lodged in group 1, I intend not to move it.

Amendment 286 returns to the issue that I raised at stage 2 of cases where community bids to purchase abandoned or neglected land are effectively thwarted by landowners who attempt to bring a portion of that site back into usage.

For Edward Mountain and others, I raise the case of Lower Largo and Largo house and estate, which is a historically significant estate in Scotland. However, it has been very difficult for the community to make a case that it falls under the provisions in respect of abandoned and neglected land. The reason for that is that around 5 per cent of the land of that estate has been developed as a horticultural enterprise. People who visit that estate will look around and see the historic buildings and the old walled garden crumbling away, and the land not being used. However, because a tiny postage stamp of that land has been developed, it is, effectively, no longer abandoned and neglected.

The community right to buy in relation to abandoned and neglected land is not working. People are looking at land and buildings every day that they know need to be brought into community ownership, so that they are not neglected, but are invested in and repaired. However, that is not happening—and it is not happening because of a loophole, which I have called the “Largo loophole”. We need to close that loophole; if not tonight, then in future legislation.

I hear what the cabinet secretary is saying about there being legal issues with the amendment and that it is incompetent and everything else. However, it is unfortunate that the consultation on community right to buy that is happening right now was not concluded ahead of the bill being introduced in Parliament. If it had been, we could have reflected its recommendations in the bill; we could have had a proper conversation about the loophole, and a whole range of other issues, and incorporated them in the bill.

I appreciate that we are where we are, and that there is no way to fix the issue right now. However, I am heartened by the comments of the cabinet secretary; just as she is listening in relation to Burntisland, I hope that she is also listening in relation to Taymouth and a lot of the other constituency issues that I have raised throughout the passage of the bill.

Communities do not feel that there is anything in this bill for them. The community in Lower Largo does not see a way forward in relation to addressing a very commonsense issue about its inability to apply for a right to buy on the basis that Largo is abandoned and neglected land.

Communities will now have to wait for a resolution. They will have to wait for the recommendations of the community right to buy review to be published and they will probably have to wait for another land reform bill before they can take action. That is unfortunate and it feels like a wasted opportunity, but we are where we are.

I will take hope from the cabinet secretary’s comments on the issue. I hope that future cabinet secretaries will listen and close this loophole and a number of the others that I have raised this evening.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the proposed ferry route between Rosyth and Dunkirk. (S6O-05048)

The minister will be aware that, before the summer recess, the First Minister gave assurances that his Government would “welcome the ferry route” and do

“everything that we can to remove any obstacles that are in the way.”—[Official Report, 5 June 2025; c 20.]

Four months on, the biggest barrier remains the border control post designation. I believe that that is resolvable. The ferry route is a significant opportunity for the local community, the Scottish economy and our connection to Europe. How will the Government support the delivery of the ferry route in the coming months? Time is ticking away; we will lose the ferry route and the direct connection to Europe. We cannot afford to lose this opportunity, and I think that the First Minister knows that, too.

I find it incredible that Parliament is being asked to back a set of carbon budgets with no accompanying plan that spells out the action that is needed to deliver them. Members have talked about learning the lessons from 2019. Surely the biggest lesson from that was that, if we are going to set ambitious targets, we need to face up to the action that is required to deliver them and the benefits that will come from doing so.

I must tell the cabinet secretary that, when Douglas Lumsden, Sarah Boyack, Patrick Harvie and Willie Rennie are all reflecting the same concern, she has lost the confidence of the chamber on the issue. It is really important that we give sectors the confidence to go forward, but that requires detail. We have sectors that are prepared to step up, such as the air-source heat pump industry. Willie Rennie mentioned other sectors that want to go further and faster, but they need certainty now about what will be in the plan.

I do not believe for one minute that the draft climate change plan is not ready. Of course it is. Of course it has been signed off by the Cabinet, because it will be laid in a matter of weeks. Why does the Government refuse to let Parliament see its proposed action ahead of setting the carbon budget? Is it because the plan spells out policies that are so radical that the fear is that members of the Scottish Parliament would not back the budget, or is it that the commitment to real action on buildings, transport and agriculture is so weak? Time will tell, but we are being asked to back a level of ambition without a clear, credible plan for action. It is for those reasons that the Greens will abstain on the regulations tonight.

The Government has taken a pick’n’mix approach to adopting the Climate Change Committee’s advice—and it is entitled to do so. However, action must still add up to the carbon budget. To be clear, the Government has ignored the Climate Change Committee’s advice on reducing livestock numbers. On that policy alone, 1 megatonne of emissions will now have to be cut from somewhere else in society. Who will deliver that missing megatonne?

The cabinet secretary for net zero said in committee that transport will pick up the slack, but when the Cabinet Secretary for Transport came to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee yesterday, there was no clarity—there was just hope and enthusiasm for the sale of electric vehicles. There will not even be a commitment to incorporating the findings of the A96 climate compatibility assessment into the climate change plan. How do we know where we are going? How do we know that the Government’s actions will add up and that we will be able to deliver the reductions in the budget?

It is not good enough. A lack of ambitious action already means that we will not reach the goal of cutting emissions by three quarters until 2036. We have lost six years in the middle of a climate crisis. Without credible action, Scotland risks overshooting the even weaker carbon budgets. We cannot afford to do that. The planet cannot afford to wait. People cannot afford to wait for a greener, fairer Scotland. We need climate action now to deliver that. That is why it is important that the detail comes forth. It should have been here, ahead of the regulations being laid in Parliament, but it has not been delivered. We will wait to see whether the Government’s actions add up.

I acknowledge the hard work and effort that Maurice Golden, his team and stakeholders have put into getting the bill to this stage. It is not to be underestimated.

Animal charities have spent many years calling for dog theft to be a specific offence in Scotland, because the current legal framework is felt to be inadequate. As we have heard, the current framework classes pets merely as property, which means that the theft of a pet has the same legal standing as the theft of personal property, such as a phone or a television. However, the theft of a pet is a fundamentally different crime, because pets are members of our families. Although the theft of a TV is distressing, it does not come with the same feelings of anxiety or grief that are felt with the theft of a beloved pet.

There is an even more significant impact if assistance dogs are stolen, as that can have a life-altering impact on those who rely on them, and that potential for heightened harm is not accounted for in the current law. The Greens therefore support the proposal in the bill to make the theft of an assistance dog an aggravated offence, which will reflect the more serious impact that that has on the owner. To ensure that that specific principle covers all dogs who provide assistance and support, we agree that a relevant amendment should be lodged at stage 2, as outlined by the minister in her most recent correspondence with the committee. I look forward to that amendment being lodged and to other amendments that would widen the definition further to other working dogs.

As the Dogs Trust highlights, the current legal framework disregards the sentience of dogs and the importance of the human-canine bond. It puts a greater emphasis on financial value than on the emotional value of dogs—it treats them merely as commodities. With only one in five dogs reported stolen being returned to their families, and a chronic underreporting of dog thefts, it is clear that there is a case for change through legislation.

Although the bill is rooted in good intentions, and the Greens are content to support its general principles at stage 1, some areas should be addressed as it progresses. In particular, we note that, currently, dog theft is covered in common law. Although we know that it is not a perfect system, we need to be absolutely clear that the bill will make a tangible difference. In the committee, witnesses repeatedly expressed the view that a stand-alone statutory offence would not necessarily be an effective deterrent to dog theft in Scotland, as the proposed penalties are similar to those that are already outlined in common law.

South of the border, since the introduction of the Pet Abduction Act 2024, the number of dogs reported stolen has dropped by 21 per cent, although whether that is a direct result of the bill is unclear, especially when we factor in the data collection issues around dog theft.

If the intention of the Parliament is to align with the 2024 act, the bill needs to be broadened to include cats and other animals that are typically kept as pets. Charities including Cats Protection and Blue Cross have called for that. The bonds between owners and their pet cats and the feelings of anxiety and distress if they are stolen are not different from those of dog owners, and they also deserve access to justice if they are victims of theft.

I am aware that a number of other members’ bills in this session of Parliament relate to dogs. With hindsight, it might have been better if, as Rhoda Grant outlined, the Government had introduced a consolidating bill to bring together different aspects of animal law. However, we are where we are.

In the months to come, I hope that a shared legacy of members in this session will be a significant improvement in the lives of dogs in Scotland, and I hope that the bill can play a part in that.

To ask the Scottish Government when it last met with residents in Tillicoultry who were evacuated from their homes two years ago when reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete was discovered. (S6O-05022)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

I would have liked the cabinet secretary to have reflected on the core theme of this debate, which is electrification. We have heard from a number of members that electrification can unlock the opportunities for freight and for passenger rail, and it can transform what the Highland main line does. Instead of having diesel locomotives chugging at 20mph up Drumochter pass, we can have something that is truly modern.

Will the cabinet secretary say a little more about where electrification of the Highland main line sits in the Government’s wider programme of electrification and decarbonisation of the entire rail network? Are we going to get that?

The owners of the flats in Tillicoultry feel bitterly let down by Clackmannanshire Council, and it is very important that they are heard. They were given barely two hours’ notice before they were evacuated from their homes by the council. In the two years since then, none of them have been allowed to re-enter their homes. Residents’ remaining possessions will probably be bulldozed into the ground along with the flats. That is a brutal way to treat people who have lost their homes. What can the cabinet secretary do to help residents to get their remaining possessions back? Will the cabinet secretary join me in meeting residents in Tillicoultry?