Seòmar agus comataidhean

I point to the committee’s excellent report, which looked at breeding, the relationship with breeding in Ireland, kennelling and other issues. Again, those issues are outwith the scope of the bill, but the committee made helpful recommendations to the Scottish Government about the work that it wants the Scottish Government to undertake in relation to those wider concerns.

This is a member’s bill and it is tightly drawn. There are wider animal welfare implications of greyhound racing, but how the Government addresses them is properly a matter for it to consider in due course.

Yes. That is what the scientific evidence shows us. It is the nature of the high-speed race, the fact that greyhounds are very fast dogs and the forces that are exerted on the dogs that lead to injuries and deaths. I do not know whether members have ever watched a greyhound race—I have not been to a greyhound racing stadium, but I have watched many races on television, as well as excerpts of races—but they will know that the speed of the dogs is phenomenal. They enjoy running, and they will run very fast, to the point where they will injure and, potentially, kill themselves. It is important that we draw a line under that.

No races are currently taking place at Thornton. I do not think that there have been any races since March this year, but I would point to what may happen in the future, particularly if the bill does not go ahead. The committee received evidence from Paul Brignal, the owner of the Thornton stadium, in response to the call for views. He indicated that, if it were not for the bill and the campaigning around it, Thornton would now be GBGB licensed. He wrote:

“the Stadium would have been racing under GBGB rules and providing part of the SIS service to betting sites all over the world, and would have been a thriving business contributing to the Scottish economy.”

The appetite is there for the one remaining greyhound racing stadium in Scotland to expand and get GBGB certification, which would mean many more races in Scotland, many more dogs racing, a higher frequency of races, more injuries and more deaths.

Partly because of the scrutiny of the committee, the member’s bill and the petition, greyhound racing currently does not exist in Scotland. However, the future may look very different. I draw the committee’s attention to the proposal to end greyhound racing in Wales that looks as though it will go through the Welsh Senedd. If the Prohibition of Greyhound Racing (Wales) Bill goes through the Senedd and is approved, investors may look to invest in upgrading tracks elsewhere in the UK. If the bill before the committee does not go through, they may well look to Scotland and decide to invest in Thornton. The future is uncertain; what happens will depend on whether the Parliament approves the bill.

I cannot see it, convener. If somebody wanted to race greyhounds around a barn, for example, that would not work. I am not sure how they could hide it. The tracks are hundreds of metres long—you can see them from space. I am not sure how effectively greyhound racing could go underground to a point where it could not be detected.

The SSPCA and local authority inspectors have existing duties under the 2006 act to investigate unnecessary suffering, alongside the police, if that is appropriate in a particular incident. If such a situation arose, they would probably already be there to look at wider aspects of animal welfare and whether the 2006 act was being breached. They would be in the mix anyway if there was an investigation. It would probably be the police, primarily, who would take responsibility for seeing who was organising the race and who was racing the dogs. It would then be for other inspectors to consider any wider welfare impacts.

I have acknowledged the position of the Government and officials in relation to bringing the bill closer to the 2006 act. If there was a way to make the bill fit more neatly with the existing powers of inspectors, I would be open to that.

Yes, the issue has been raised, particularly by animal welfare charities, which would like to see progress on greyhound welfare everywhere in the UK and an end to greyhound racing everywhere in the UK and Ireland.

The bill is very tightly drawn and creates a stand-alone offence of racing a greyhound and organising the racing of greyhounds in Scotland. It is obviously not possible for us in this Parliament to create an offence around racing a greyhound in Swindon, Oxford or, indeed, Wales. The issues around dogs that are kennelled in Scotland, whose trainers live in Scotland and that are taken to races around the UK relate to existing practice—it happens at the moment. I am concerned about some of the welfare implications of that practice, particularly around kennelling, breeding and transportation, but it is not within the scope of the bill.

There may be a case for the Scottish Government considering wider licensing. For example, is animal transport licensing currently working effectively for racing greyhounds? Are local authorities enforcing it? However, that is outwith the scope of the bill. As the member might recall, I asked that question of the minister during last week’s evidence session. I would like the Government to conduct a wider review, but that review would also be outside the scope of the bill. It may be that such a review could consider other animals and other breeds of dog. The Government might need to do a larger piece of work.

I note that, alongside introducing its bill, which will create a stand-alone offence of racing a greyhound, the Welsh Government has committed to doing a wider piece of work to review the existing regulatory framework in Wales in relation to racing greyhounds that cross the Welsh border. The Scottish Government could also do such a review, but it would not be within the scope of this bill, which is about creating a narrow offence and giving the courts enforcement powers on the back of that.

I point to what happened in Wales, which had an unlicensed track—the last unlicensed track in Wales. It sought investment, registered with GBGB and, as a result of that, started televising races around the world. The number of races went up, the number of dogs involved went up and, as a result, the number of injuries and deaths went up. That might change, if the Welsh Senedd approves a bill to end greyhound racing in Wales.

If we do not agree to the bill, the same could happen here: the last remaining unlicensed track could get licensed, and, based on the figures that come from GBGB, I do not think that that would lead to a welfare improvement. If anything, it could result in more dogs being raced, more dogs dying and more dogs being injured. That is the risk.

Absolutely. The point of the debate is to look to the future and to the vision that we all want to create.

The success of bus travel has not only been about the number of journeys that have been taken; it is shown in the way in which it has removed travel barriers for young people and encouraged them and their families to use buses more widely. It is clear that attitudes are changing: recent data from the Walk Wheel Cycle Trust shows that 67 per cent of young people are supportive and want to see more public transport. There is success in the thousands of pounds that young people and their families have saved, which has been crucial at a time of ever-stretching household budgets. It is also shown in the way in which it has allowed young people to find new opportunities, whether those are social, at work or in education.

In the one-year evaluation of the scheme, it was found that a third of young people using the concession scheme were able to access new opportunities and new activities. Ultimately, that is good for the economy. I want young people to get the best possible start in life by being able to access good careers and prosperity and to generate wealth that can then be reinvested back into the public services to pay for the services that gave them a helping hand in the first place. Let us dare to invest in that future for more young people.

In every way, the under-22 scheme continues to achieve what it intended. We must ensure that its success continues, which includes addressing some of the key issues that young people and their families have highlighted. Reliability, frequency and accessibility are some of the main reasons why young people, especially in rural areas, have not yet had the full benefits of the scheme. I agree with Mr Hoy that the scheme is great if you are a young person who can use it, but if no buses are near you, the timetable is not great or the buses just do not show up, it will have very little impact on your life.

As soon as a young person turns 22, they hit a cliff edge and, overnight, they are suddenly forced to pay full fares. A young person who commutes into Glasgow for a new job will face a £40 travel bill every week. A young person who travels into Edinburgh from Dunfermline to attend college will—overnight, when they turn 22—face a £35 travel bill every week. However, the circumstances of those young people’s lives will not have changed overnight. The affordability crisis does not stop when they reach 22; it is not paused until a later date.

People in their 20s are far more likely to be living, and struggling, with soaring costs of living, adults under the age of 25 are more likely to be living in poverty than older adults, and 37 per cent of 16 to 25-year-olds were in relative poverty, after housing costs were paid, last year. Young people are also more likely to be in insecure employment, with zero-hours contracts, low pay and irregular shifts being the norm, and they are significantly more likely to be in private rented accommodation, the prices for which have soared over the past decade. On top of all that, young people have to attempt to stretch their budgets even further to cover their travel costs. That will only worsen and deepen young people’s experiences of poverty and the cost of living crisis.

We need decisive, bold action to expand free bus travel. The schemes for under-22s, older people and disabled people should be seen as the start of the work rather than the end of it. We should invest in expanding concessionary schemes to cover more people, so that people can continue to access vital opportunities and are not left behind because they cannot afford an extortionate bus fare.

I welcome the pilot project, which was agreed as part of last year’s budget negotiations between the Greens and the Scottish National Party, to introduce a bus fare cap in a region of Scotland. However, we are just weeks away from the proposed start date and, to my knowledge—unless the minister corrects me—there has been very little progress. The Government needs to follow through on its commitments.

It is critical that more bus services are run in the public interest. It is clear that decades of deregulation have been catastrophic for bus services, so it is galling to see the Conservative amendment extolling the benefits of competition. There are different ways in which we can put the public interest at the heart of how bus services are commissioned and run in this country. I am delighted that Strathclyde Partnership for Transport is moving down the road towards franchising, and the Government should support it in every way possible to achieve that goal. However, the current franchising decision-making process still raises concerns and needs to be simplified.

I want other models, too: the direct control of services by councils, the establishment of community bus companies and even national parks commissioning their own services. The restored bus services of the future should be run by the public, for the public, and should be affordable, accessible and reliable. That is the vision of the Scottish Greens. We invite other parties in the chamber to join us and make that happen.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that communities across Scotland deserve affordable, accessible and reliable bus services; further agrees that more bus services across Scotland should be run in the public interest to improve services and reduce fares for all passengers; celebrates that 250 million bus journeys have been taken by young people in Scotland since the introduction of free bus travel for under-22s, and calls on the Scottish Government to expand free bus travel to more young people.

Scottish Green MSPs believe that everyone in Scotland deserves to benefit from affordable, accessible and reliable transport, including from their local bus services. Having access to better buses has hugely positive impacts on people’s lives, helping everyone to access education and work opportunities, to be connected to vital local and national services and to connect with one another. It also plays a role in addressing the climate crisis, because it encourages us all to leave the car at home and cut climate pollution.

However, people across Scotland still struggle with the affordability and accessibility of public transport, especially buses. Over the past decade, the cost of bus travel has risen by more than 60 per cent, which is faster than the rate of wages and the cost of living. Those fare increases put significant financial strain on families across Scotland and disproportionately impact people on low incomes, women and people from minority ethnic communities, as they are more likely to rely on the bus.

However, it does not have to be that way. The Scottish Greens have continuously fought to make public transport more affordable, accessible and reliable, which has included delivering free bus travel for all under-22s in Scotland from January 2022 and working constructively with the Government on successive budget deals. Three years on, we can see just how successful that scheme has been: since its roll-out, more than 250 million journeys have been made and there were over 800,000 cardholders as of June. I live with two of them at home. In my region, the scheme has been taken up by just over 100,000 young people, which has resulted in some 26.5 million journeys.

To what extent does case law help us to make a distinction between “significant environmental harm” and “severe environmental harm”?

I guess that it would depend on whether the harm was severe or significant, in which case the higher sentencing would be available.