Seòmar agus comataidhean

The member points to my record of calling for a just transition plan for Mossmorran for years. Can he point to a single thing that he, or any of his three other Tory colleagues who cover Fife, has ever done to support the community and the workers at Mossmorran?

You got your picture taken for your newsletter.

What was needed was to bring the stakeholders and operators together to look at the future. The report that I issued in 2022 laid out four clear options for investment in the plant, which could have given it a life. It did not have to close. There were options. Both Governments needed to come together and work to deliver a plan. We knew that the threat of closure was coming. For years, the Greens called on both Governments to prepare for that future, but no work was undertaken. Responses to freedom of information requests revealed that the Scottish Government has not undertaken any work to develop a just transition plan for Mossmorran, despite committing to delivering that work in April 2024. Although the UK Government was in touch with ExxonMobil from April last year about threats to the site, nothing was ready for delivery when the site finally closed.

Over past years, in the absence of a site-specific plan, I have commissioned research. I have held summits with Unite the Union, the GMB, Fife Council, the Scottish Government, Fife College and others to plan for the future. Both plant operators declined to attend. Only after the closure announcement were formal, Government-led task forces hurriedly convened.

The £9 million, three-year funding package that has been promised by the Scottish Government is warmly welcomed, but it is not enough to support a proper just transition. A commitment from ExxonMobil is needed to deliver a real legacy. Funding from the United Kingdom Government is also needed, and that funding needs to hit the ground running. I will listen carefully to the Deputy First Minister’s speech for detail about when the funding streams will be open, what conditions she will place on funding recipients and how that money will directly support individual workers and the wider communities.

Although the Prime Minister stated that workers at the Fife plant were going through a hard time, we still do not have any targeted funding package from the UK Minister for Industry, Chris McDonald. There has been ample time to come forward with an initial package. A first step is needed—not a cap on the UK Government’s funding but a contribution to what is needed right now in communities.

Hundreds of millions of pounds have been invested into Grangemouth by the UK Government. The workers and communities at Mossmorran deserve a similar commitment. As a minimum, the UK Government needs to step up and at least match the £9 million that has been committed by the Scottish Government at this very early stage. The ExxonMobil site has closed and no targeted funding for a just transition is available or in place. The cycle of too little, too late must stop. A proper legacy must be built now.

Over the decades, the community has made huge sacrifices. The disruption caused by flaring caused misery for decades. Sleep was impossible at times, houses shook with vibration and community councils even campaigned for rates reduction as compensation in the 1980s. It is therefore right that the community should shape the legacy alongside the generations of workers who served at the site. The legacy should be a complete reset for the Mossmorran site and an opportunity for the communities to help to choose their own future.

With an excellent grid connection and water supply, Mossmorran could have a fresh industrial future. The Grangemouth task force drew up dozens of potential industrial projects, some of which might be more suitable for Mossmorran, but communities need to be able to steer their future. Simply replacing ExxonMobil with A N Other could miss the opportunity for community investment.

We have seen the power of local community enterprise. The Ore Valley Housing Association’s wind turbine delivers big investment for social housing and local charities. Options for genuine community wealth building must be built into the master plan for the site; the days of accepting crumbs off the table have passed.

The skills legacy must also be real. Fife’s industrial future looks bright. The ingredients are all there, from Rosyth to Methil. There needs to be an industrial strategy for Fife that links opportunities from schools right through to colleges, apprenticeships and universities. A training excellence centre could form part of that legacy. It is time for ExxonMobil to step up, with the UK Government and the Scottish Government, and work with the colleges, unions and Fife Council to deliver that.

I also want to mention the elephant in the room—Shell—whose neighbouring plant was linked to the ethylene plant, providing much of its feedstock. The boat was missed to put in place a just transition plan for the ethylene plant and the natural gas liquids plant, but it is not too late to consider how Shell’s plant could survive into the future with investment to decarbonise.

Given the increasing vulnerability of the Acorn carbon capture and storage project, with Mossmorran and the Grangemouth refinery now out of the Acorn business plan, the Scottish Government needs to lead a conversation urgently if it still believes that CCS has a future.

The Scottish Greens have worked with the unions and communities for years to address the problems at Mossmorran and to map out what a future for the site looks like. Now that ExxonMobil has pulled the plug, it is time for both Governments to step up, work together, open up funding streams and build confidence for workers and communities now that Fife has a strong future.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the UK Government and Scottish Government must urgently deliver targeted just transition funding for workers and communities following the early closure of the ExxonMobil Fife Ethylene Plant at Mossmorran.

16:08

I thank the Deputy First Minister for making that announcement. That will be welcomed by the workers. Has there been any conversation with Chris McDonald and the UK Government about what they might bring in alongside that to support communities and the workers?

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.

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

It is clear that when individuals carry out serious criminal behaviour and end up in court, it should be in the gift of the courts to restrict their access to a bus pass, or even to public transport full stop, should they consider that appropriate. That is the way to deal with criminals who are going through the criminal justice system.

With regard to the order, which is about concessionary bus passes, I cannot see how it will make any difference whatsoever to that criminal behaviour—not one jot. All that we are saying, in effect, is that somebody does not have a free bus pass any longer, but they are still at liberty to get on board whatever bus they want. They are still at liberty to be in a bus station or throw bricks at a bus from the side of the road, as we have seen in Clackmannanshire and in Edinburgh.

The order will not change anything, but it will set up a very costly bureaucratic system—