Seòmar agus comataidhean

Will the “In town, slow down” message be reinforced by national communications? In Wales, there has been a 25 per cent reduction in casualties as a result of the national roll-out. That is partly because it has been very high profile and the Government there has put a lot of money into messaging and telling people why it is there, rather than people saying, “Oh, I noticed that the speed limit’s dropped,” but they are not sure why. Is there anything to reinforce that message now, as we get to the point where the whole of Scotland has the 20mph limit where it makes sense to put it?

I appreciate that the design of any schemes needs to be a very local decision, because there are local factors. However, is there an issue that that creates uncertainty? You now have a climate change plan that has a big hole in it. The cabinet secretary with responsibility for net zero said that transport will be filling that hole, so there will be an acceleration of actions on transport.

If many of those actions are being delivered at local level, and if it is in effect up to councils to decide whether to use congestion charging or demand management, is there a danger that major projects or things that you are relying on in the climate plan will not come forward because councils are reluctant, so we might end up with a big black hole in our attempts to reduce carbon emissions? How would we fill that? We cannot completely fill it with EVs; there must be new and innovative policy. How can you ensure that action will be taken at local level, that projects will come through and that policies will be enacted, if that all depends on local councils?

I am sure that we will see the plan at some point.

It needs to add up.

Right, but that was the message that we got a year ago—that we are in the final stages and that there needs to be further consultation—so is it fair to say that it is now a year behind? What is a realistic timescale—will we get it in December, January or February or at dissolution?

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?