Seòmar agus comataidhean

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. We 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?

I very much welcome the minister to his new role, but I point out to him that a number of members across the chamber have written to him about the proposed closure of the Alloa campus of Forth Valley College—a move that would be devastating for the community. Will he commit to coming to Alloa to meet us, unions and others who are concerned about the closure, and to work on a cross-party basis to ensure that the college can remain open to serve the community for generations to come?

I thank my colleague Ariane Burgess for lodging the motion. As we celebrate 200 years since the birth of the railways, it is a great time to look at that vision for Scotland’s railways, and Ariane Burgess has laid out an exciting vision for the economy of the Highlands and for communities.

I welcome the fact that some small improvements that have been made to the Highland main line in Perthshire in my region. The £3 million upgrade of Dunkeld and Birnam station is very welcome, with extended platforms allowing longer train services to stop, improvements in access by raising platforms and improvements to waiting areas. The partnership working with the community station group has been very positive.

However, all of the improvements that have been made so far have been about maintaining the railway; they are not game-changing investments that can deliver the real potential of the Highland main line. The work at Dunkeld and Birnam is only one step in the right direction; the station itself remains cut off from the community by the A9, and it needs to be fully reconnected. So far, the community’s proposals to have the road enter a short underpass have been rejected. I am sure that, if Dunkeld and Birnam were in the Alps, the authorities would not think twice about making the road fit the landscape and the community, and it is disappointing that, after years of consultation, the proposals have been rejected, even though they would represent a tiny fraction of the total cost of the A9 dualling project.

The context of the A9 is important, and not just because it shares the same corridor as the Highland main line. The prioritisation of road over rail will be damaging unless there is a matching investment in the railway—an important point that has already been raised by John Mason. Dualling the A9 will result in an increase in car mileage at a time when the Government still has a commitment to bringing it down.

Moreover, the Government is now pointing to transport as a sector where even deeper cuts in carbon emissions will have to be made in the forthcoming climate change plan, and I am interested in hearing the cabinet secretary’s view on how we start to square that circle. If it is to compete with the A9, the railway needs to be fully electrified from Dunblane through Perth to Inverness as soon as possible to deliver major benefits for passengers and freight.

Electric trains will reduce journey times. They accelerate faster, will climb Drumochter pass far quicker than diesel locos and will be able to haul heavier freight loads. We have already seen the major benefits of using class 93 electric trains to haul test freight on the west coast main line—it is now time to bring those advantages to industry in the Highlands.

Electrification will also enable more trains to run on the Highland main line, because faster running times on single lines between passing loops will allow more trains on the network. We can have better, faster, more frequent services with more capacity for people and freight, but only with full electrification.

I recognise the Government’s priorities. Making progress on electrifying the Fife and Borders services is a priority, especially given that new battery electric trains have been ordered and are on the way. After those projects are complete, we must shift the focus on to the Highland main line, partly because this is also about keeping railway engineering jobs in Scotland through a pipeline of electrification projects that can support young people joining the industry.

With electrification of the Highland main line agreed, the route could then be redesigned to maximise the benefits. New and altered crossing loops, double tracking and freight-specific enhancements could be planned to meet the needs of industry and passengers for generations to come. Reflecting on Richard Leonard’s point, I would suggest a step-by-step process, with electrification coming first before we start looking at dualling and other enhancements.

In conclusion, the Highland main line is the key to unlocking the industrial potential of the Highlands. We must shift the focus to rail and invest in a line that is low-carbon and competitive, but that work really needs to start now.

Gulls are in overall decline in Scotland. Three out of five of the species face an extinction risk. Gull populations are increasing in urban areas because of the availability of food but, in the natural environment, food sources are declining because of climate change and overfishing, and natural breeding sites are also declining. What action, summits and funding will be available to ensure that gulls have a home and food in the natural environment, where they belong?

What I am hearing this morning is that it will be the third-generation fuels—the e-fuels—that will dominate and will be the future as we move forward, because of the potential conflict with growing biofeedstocks.

However, what might happen in, say, 10 or 20 years down the line, in a world in which the whole of society is electrified, and where we have electric-battery surface transport, hydrogen being used, electric heating and so on? All of those things are going to create a huge demand for generation. Our briefing notes suggest that, if we wanted to fully lean into e-fuels for aviation, we would need seven to eight times more electricity-generating capacity in the UK than we had in 2020.

It is not exactly the same situation as it is with biofuel, where you are competing with food and obviously there are limits to the amount of land that we have, but do you acknowledge that there will be a point where, even with renewable electricity generation, we will hit the buffers, because everything will be electrified and the need for generation is going to double, treble, quadruple or—potentially—quintuple in the years ahead? Do you have any thoughts on that?