Seòmar agus comataidhean

:I move on to the subject of negative emissions technologies. The assumption in the draft climate change plan is that there will be about 12 megatonnes of emissions reduction in the third or fourth carbon budget. That is double what the Climate Change Committee has recommended. What are your thoughts on that? Is it really credible to double down on that emissions reduction? What are the key risks and contingencies, particularly given that some of the main sources of carbon that were going to be fed into Acorn at Grangemouth and Mossmorran are no longer going to be feeding in and that there are questions about delivery in relation to Acorn?

:Can I just intervene? You are giving useful context, but there is only one negative emissions technology proposal on the table at the moment, and that is project Acorn, which is on track 2. There are concerns about the deliverability of and risks to that. I am interested in your thoughts about that, particularly in relation to the climate change plan. The cabinet secretary was in front of the committee a few weeks ago and she said:

“If CCUS did not develop at the level that the Climate Change Committee has modelled in its calculations, that committee would have to go back to its assumptions and provide additional advice”.—[Official Report, Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, 10 February 2026; c 45.]

So, on the point about the Scottish Government having a plan B if project Acorn does not materialise, it is clearly saying that it is for the Climate Change Committee to think that one through. If project Acorn does not happen, what do you see as the contingency plan? What would that plan B look like?

:The difficulty for the committee is that we are trying to understand the implications of project Acorn not going ahead. You have flagged up one sector where it has been difficult for the Government to make progress, and that is buildings. Are you saying that we are going to get a 12 megatonne reduction in emissions from buildings and that that is the way forward? If you are not able to point to what a plan B might look like at this point, when could that advice be given to the Scottish Government? It is clearly asking the CCC for the advice.

It is disappointing that there is no automatic seat on the board for worker representation. ScotRail’s board has a representative who has come from a senior position at the Scottish Trades Union Congress. That is the kind of representation that we look for on a public utility.

I come back to the balance of non-executive and executive members. You said that Steve Dickson represents the interests of employees and employee rights, but we do not know what his background is. We will get his CV—maybe we can google it.

I also note that the reduction in executive board directors involves the removal of the role of chief operating officer, who would normally be responsible for all elements that relate to staffing, recruitment and terms and conditions. I am a bit concerned—and I think that the Water Industry Commission for Scotland has also raised this concern—that, with the COO no longer in existence and part of the board, there is a danger that some of the staffing issues, which have been in the public eye through the concerns of unions, could somehow slip off the agenda a little bit more. Who from the executive board team will be primarily responsible for those issues, which are of concern and importance?

I am not entirely sure what the purpose of the amendment is, and I do not know whether anyone else in the committee is either.

It is quite clear that the bill is intended to prevent a resumption of greyhound racing in Scotland. The committee will know, from evidence that it has taken from the owners of the Thornton track, that the intention is very much to continue to race greyhounds in Scotland. However, the amendment appears to relate to those who are rehoming greyhounds. Again, I do not see the purpose of it.

As the minister stated, the Welfare of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2025 includes a code of practice that sets out a range of considerations relating to the health and welfare of dogs. Should a greyhound that no longer races be rehomed, the new owner would be required to have regard to the code of practice. There is also more general best practice guidance to help those who are responsible for dogs to meet their duty of care under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006.

10:15

It is worth noting that a number of rescue and rehoming centres that are based in Scotland, including those of the Dogs Trust, which has given evidence to the committee, and the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, have indicated their willingness to care for and find suitable homes for greyhounds that have previously been used in racing. After the Shawfield stadium shut down, all the dogs that previously raced there were successfully rehomed by reputable rehoming charities. Taking that into account and given the existing guidance and codes of practice related to the welfare of dogs, it is unclear what the purpose of additional guidance would be and what it would contain. Therefore, I do not support amendment 19.

The bill as introduced would come into force 12 months after royal assent. When the bill was drafted, that was deemed appropriate, as it would allow a lead-in time for the owners of Thornton racetrack and others, such as rehoming centres, to put in place any measures that would be required to prepare for the change in the law. However, I accept the Scottish Government’s reasoning that, by commencing the bill by regulations, it can be assured that all the appropriate measures have been put into place before the bill comes into force. It goes back to the earlier point that we can streamline the approach and relate it more to the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006. I hope that the court guidance can then be updated quickly, so that we can move to a speedy implementation of the regulations under the bill.

Amendment 18 would provide flexibility, allowing the bill to come into force sooner than 12 months after royal assent should all the appropriate measures be in place earlier. I thank the minister and his officials for engaging with me on this matter and on all the amendments at stage 2. I am content to support amendment 18.

The enforcement powers that are provided for in the bill allow the courts to make deprivation, disqualification or seizure orders where an offence has been committed, should they deem it appropriate to do so. The powers are modelled on the appropriate equivalent provisions in the Animal Health and Welfare Act (Scotland) 2006 and the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Act 2023, tailored where necessary to ensure that they are appropriate for offences that are created in the bill.

I previously indicated that I was open to the Scottish Government’s suggestion that the bill should be amended so that the provisions of deprivation, disqualification and seizure orders under part 2 of the 2006 act can be applied instead of the enforcement powers that are provided for in sections 5 to 9 of the bill as introduced. I thank the minister and his officials for the useful discussions that we have had in regard to the amendments.

I accept the Government’s view that it would be preferable and more consistent to provide for post-conviction orders by means of the 2006 act. I also accept the minister’s view that the amendments would allow enforcement of the bill to be streamlined and avoid the need to establish new court processes. I hope that that will allow the implementation of the bill to be sped up.

I am content that, should the amendments be agreed to, my intended outcome—that the courts have sufficient power and flexibility to impose appropriate sanctions on anyone who is found guilty of the bill’s two primary offences—will be achieved. I am therefore content with the proposed amendments in this group and am happy to support them.

Amendment 4 agreed to.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule—Enforcement powers

Amendments 5 to 7 moved—[Jim Fairlie]—and agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Section 4—Time limit for summary proceedings

Although I am content that the bill is sufficiently clear that offences will apply only where a greyhound has been raced on a track in Scotland, I accept the Government’s suggestion that setting that out expressly in the bill would be helpful, particularly given that, should the bill pass, the legal position in relation to greyhound racing will be different in Scotland compared to other parts of the UK. A similar amendment to the Prohibition of Greyhound Racing (Wales) Bill has gone through the Welsh Senedd.

On amendment 3, as the policy memorandum sets out, my intention is to include a regulation-making power that allows Scottish ministers to amend the definition of a racetrack to allow the Government to change the definition should racing on circular or straight tracks, or other types of premises, develop and prove to be harmful to greyhounds. I am content to accept amendment 3 and the other amendments in the group.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendments 2 and 3 moved—[Jim Fairlie]—and agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

Section 2 agreed to.

Section 3—Powers of enforcement

As the minister said, amendment 8 removes the time bar for bringing forward proceedings. That will make the bill more consistent with the approach taken in the 2006 act. It would also allow greater time for investigation of offences and avoid instances where proceedings cannot be commenced—for example, if an investigation was particularly complex. I am persuaded that the amendment would be useful and I am happy to support it.

So, you are not taking a lead on public access.

I turn to the subject of species licensing. It would be good to know exactly where you are with the species licensing review: what the headlines are coming out of it, and when we expect the review to be signed off.