Patrick Harvie
Scottish Green Party · Scotland
“That challenge is important because, when other politicians and the media choose to ignore the arguments of far-right populism or, worse still, excuse them under the guise of “legitimate concerns”, they gradually legitimise them.”
“That is how we build, to quote the motion, “a successful nation, where everyone can feel hope”. It is how we pay to protect public services, tackle poverty and more. However, how could we expect a political party that is run by millionaires and funded by billionaires to understand that or even to care?”
“These cause disruption and devastation, highlighting the vulnerability of our globally interconnected societies.” As Brian Hoskins, the chair of the Grantham research institute on climate change and the environment, has said, “the discourse around net zero is increasingly decoupled from that science and our changing weather.”
“Patrick Harvie: No, I will not be taking interventions. Those are the voices that we should be listening to, not Nigel Farage’s hand-picked politicians.”
“To be honest, I was tempted to ignore this debate altogether. I can think of a dozen better things I could do with a few hours than debate one of the most incoherent motions that I have seen in 23 years in this Parliament. Goodness knows what shape it was in when the chamber desk first got its hands on it and tried to sort it out.”
“On net zero, which yesterday’s debate showed most political parties understand to be a necessity and an opportunity, Reform members repeatedly said that they support the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change position even as they appealed for ever more fossil fuels while the mercury rises outside.”
The complete record
Every one of 544 lines we hold for Patrick Harvie, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 11.
“My concern now is that, with the draft plan as it stands, the second half of the journey could fail just as the first half did. Looking at the draft plan, it seems that we are setting Scotland up for future failure. The overreliance on negative emissions technology, which Mark Ruskell highlighted, is perhaps the biggest risk factor in the plan. It was always a risk, but, with the very obvious and all-too-predictable failures in the development of the technology, the risk is turning into a 12-megatonne hole in the Scottish Government’s plans. As Mark Ruskell argued, it is a massive gamble, and it is accompanied by a proposal for a new fossil fuel power plant, which is an absurdity when we are years behind schedule on cutting emissions. On transport, there is a narrow emphasis on EVs.”
“We had consensus on the targets but not on the actions that would be needed—and so it proved. There was a failure to take the bold action that was necessary to cut emissions across many sectors. That is the reason why the 2030 target slipped out of reach. That is where we stand now as we approach the halfway point. Next year marks the halfway point between the first climate act, in 2009, and the net zero target of 2045. In the first half of that journey, there has been only one solid success story: the growth of renewable electricity, which has been welcomed by most and opposed by a few—and that is still the case. Across the other sectors of the economy— transport, land use, buildings and more— emissions have flatlined or worse. That is the reason why Scotland is now years behind where we should be in tackling the climate emergency.”
“Indeed, the only resolution that we have allowed ourselves to vote on is a completely standard “take note” motion at decision time. There is no substance and there is no message for the Government within the resolution. It is a failure of the Parliament’s process as well as the Government’s process. We also have to acknowledge that there has been a failure of progress, and there are other past failures that we need to reflect on. When I think back to the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, I remember all the self- congratulation about target setting and the emphasis on consensus and how important that was. However, even as we debated the issues back in 2008 and 2009, I expressed the concern that we had consensus on the destination only and not on the route.”
“I start by acknowledging that there has been a failure of process. As a result of the timescale that the Scottish Government decided on, not enough time has been left for committee scrutiny to be done to the standard that committees would wish. The UK’s Climate Change Committee was not willing or able to appear before committees to give evidence. As it stands, we have the committee’s report and the CCC’s report in the final days of the parliamentary term and there is very little time for the Government to change the draft climate change plan in response to the debate. Part of the failure of process is entirely within the Parliament’s control. The Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2024 says that the Government must respond to resolutions, as well as to reports, by the Parliament within three months.”
“In the next session of the Parliament, if I am lucky enough to be returned, I will want to see a much clearer link between the strategy and the budget that is delivered. I will also want to see more collegiate working to get the budget agreed on a cross-party basis in the Parliament. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to closing speeches. I advise the chamber that we have a little time in hand, but resources of generosity have been vastly depleted at this stage. 16:53”
“I mention that because it is the latest modelling and research work, but the modelling and research sometimes change. The Climate Change Committee asked clearly what plan B and the alternatives would be if those things changed and our ambitions were not fully realised. Do I have another minute or so, Presiding Officer? The Deputy Presiding Officer: No, you do not. Bob Doris: My goodness. Mr Kerr gets a lot of airtime, doesn’t he, Presiding Officer? The Deputy Presiding Officer: As do other colleagues, Mr Doris. Bob Doris: More generally, by definition, all climate change plans are out of date almost as soon as they are written, because the policy landscape changes and public budgets, technologies and modelling all change. The climate change plan has to be iterative, but it also has to be delivered through the budget.”
“The Scottish Government has chosen an alternative balanced pathway to net zero from that of the Climate Change Committee and it has chosen not to reduce livestock numbers, as was suggested by the committee. That seems to be for good reason. However, that means that peatland restoration and reforestation must do more heavy lifting if we are to secure net zero. The plan does that in a fashion, because reforestation and peatland restoration do not scale up under the Scottish Government’s plan. New modelling work and new research show that the contribution that tree planting and peatland restoration make is far more significant than was previously thought. In that respect, I reference the industry standard for carbon sequestration in forestry, as well as the latest research from the James Hutton Institute on peatland restoration.”
“I say that as an urban MSP. As an urban MSP, I would look to bus franchising to achieve the modal switch, which is not a cost-free option. The Strathclyde Partnership for Transport continues to bring forward a business model for it. There are also challenges with bus franchising. To achieve our net zero ambitions, do we need to get those who are using cars in urban areas out of their cars and on to buses, or will we need to prioritise low-income areas that have no bus services and no cars so that they can be better connected? There can be a conflict in that. We have to be clear about the policy intent of bus franchising, but it will need to be appropriately financially supported. By the nature of their geography, our rural areas will make a crucial contribution to net zero, whether that is through reforestation or peatland restoration.”
“What about the bill you just scrapped? Bob Doris: Would the member like to make an intervention? Patrick Harvie: All that I was going to say is that what those people need is the bill that the Scottish Government has just scrapped. Bob Doris: My constituents need the draft bill that has been published to be delivered in the next session of the Parliament. It needs buy-in from all parties, including the Green Party, rather than members making a churlish intervention like that. I note that the Scottish Government has changed the target for reducing car mileage to 4 per cent by 2030, as opposed to the previous 20 per cent target. Clearly, that gives an added focus to the need to move to electric vehicles as speedily as possible. The change in the target also recognises the on-going need for cars, particularly in our rural areas.”
“Angus Robertson: The first thing that I would say to Patrick Harvie is that, as he knows, the Scottish Government’s position on international law and maintaining international law is absolutely clear, and the First Minister has outlined that. I remind Patrick Harvie that I sat in the House of Commons and voted against Iraq military operations in past decades, so my record on the subject is absolutely clear. The Scottish Government’s position is absolutely clear. We support international law. I have pointed out that we are seeking clarity from the UK Government in relation to aircraft passing through Scottish Government-owned airports. We have no information, as I have already said, that any such aircraft have taken part in offensive military operations, and we are seeking clarity from the UK Government on that point.”
“It is simply not good enough to say that it is unclear whether the US and Israel have complied with international law. Pete Hegseth, the US defence secretary, said yesterday that the US action would continue “regardless of what so-called international institutions say”. He said that there would be “No stupid rules of engagement … no democracy building exercise, no politically correct wars.” The US is being quite explicit that it has contempt for international law. What more will it take for the Scottish Government, as the owner of Prestwick and other airports, which are therefore within devolved control, to say that it will not do business with US military forces under any circumstances?”
“I believe that the way in which we conduct ourselves in the chamber sends a strong message to children and young people, and to the public, who we are all elected to represent in this place. I very much agree with the sentiment behind Mr Harvie’s question.”
“The cabinet secretary may be aware of the conviction of an offender last week for threatening and abusive behaviour against one of our parliamentary colleagues—actions that were directly related to far-right campaigning on this issue. Some members of the Parliament have used social media to stir up hostility against others on the issue. That action has consequences. Does the cabinet secretary agree that we all have a responsibility to stand up to extremist rhetoric and to treat the issue with the seriousness that it deserves, instead of fanning the flames of conspiracy and division? Jenny Gilruth: I thank Mr Harvie for the general sentiment of his question in relation to us all having a responsibility to stand up to extremist rhetoric. Yes—I very much agree with that.”
“They would mean that an MSP who received a sentence of imprisonment of more than 12 months but who was not imprisoned as a result would be subject to neither recall nor removal. The amendments are also deficient in that they provide no legal definition of the term “community sentence”. We may all have a rough understanding of what Sue Webber refers to, but legislation needs more than that, and the term is not defined in Scottish legislation.”
“Although, thankfully, Ms Webber has dropped her initial idea of disqualifying members who have been remanded in custody but have not faced trial and have therefore not been convicted of any offence, we are still in the territory of disqualifying members before the outcome of any appeal against a conviction or sentence that would disqualify them. That cannot be right and may give rise to challenge. That difficulty also gives rise to competency issues for the bill, which cannot be overlooked. That may go to Martin Whitfield’s point. If the amendments were to be agreed to, the Government might need to lodge a motion to adjourn proceedings so that we could seek to address those concerns about competency. I also note that, as drafted, Ms Webber’s amendments would leave gaps in the process.”
“As I set out during stage 2, the amendments would, in the first instance, remove from the bill the criminal offence ground as a trigger for recall, leaving recall to be triggered solely by parliamentary sanction. In that case, any member who was convicted of an offence for which they received a community sentence of any type or a sentence of imprisonment for up to 12 months would be disqualified and cease to be a member immediately, without consideration of any recall process or any element of an appeal against that conviction. That would give rise to ECHR considerations, which would cause the Scottish Government to have concerns about the competence of the bill.”
“Martin Whitfield: I take up the point that was made by the member who lodged the amendments in this group about the risk that the amendments could fall foul of the ECHR. I must say that I, along with Scottish Labour, am unable to support any of the amendments in the group. However, if, for some reason, they were agreed to, would she support the member in charge of the bill and would she feel that the matter should be referred back to the committee? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Perhaps that can be dealt with by the member in her winding up. I call the minister. Graeme Dey: Sue Webber’s amendments are, on the whole, a mixture of her amendments at stage 2 that were either not moved or disagreed to, and, as at stage 2, the Government remains opposed to them.”
“Fundamentally, this is not about the pastiche—[Interruption.] The Deputy Presiding Officer: Members, please. Alex Cole-Hamilton: Fundamentally, it is about the very real proposition that, in the future, we might find ourselves in less enlightened times, when Opposition parliamentarians may vote against, rail against and stand against the laws of this land and, by extension, and sometimes by dint of their own conscience, civilly disobey those laws. If they commit a small crime, those members should not be recalled. However, if such members to be recalled, it should be up to the public to discern whether their crime merits their being removed from the chamber; it is about the case that such a member would make to the people who sent them to Parliament. I completely oppose the amendments in the name of Sue Webber.”
“If we are going to talk about leaders of political parties who break the law, I do not think that the Liberals have a particularly esteemed history in that respect, and members of the Scottish National Party should certainly think twice about throwing stones in that particular glasshouse. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We have got the gist of the intervention. Alex Cole-Hamilton: Stephen Kerr has evoked the memory of Jeremy Thorpe, bringing the sublime proceedings of this Parliament into the ridiculous realm of Conservative fantasy. My goodness, is that the best that they have, Presiding Officer? Boris Johnson broke the law. Yes, he paid the ultimate price but only after, in his words, he was dragged out of number 10 with a blowtorch. My goodness me, is this what we have come to? Let us simmer all this down.”
“The Conservatives should feel shame at the incongruity between their amendment and the recent actions of their own leadership, with not just one but two Prime Ministers who have broken the law and who, by their own admission—[Interruption.] The Deputy Presiding Officer: Members, please make less noise. Stephen Kerr: Will Alex Cole-Hamilton give way on that point? Alex Cole-Hamilton: I will. Stephen Kerr: It is ridiculous that that point was made by Patrick Harvie and was agreed with by the leader of the Liberal Democrats, because both of the individuals to whom we are referring paid the price for breaking the law.”
“Does Alex Cole-Hamilton find it odd, as I do, that we are being asked to accept that argument from members of a political party that in recent years has provided two Prime Ministers who broke the law while in office? Alex Cole-Hamilton: Patrick Harvie is receiving some much-deserved applause for what was an excellent intervention. I can see the faces of our Conservative colleagues growing red with shame—[Interruption.] The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Cole- Hamilton, will you resume your seat for a second? There is far too much noise all over the chamber. We need to hear the member who has the floor. Alex Cole-Hamilton: Patrick Harvie is absolutely right.”
“I am not convinced that there is no risk of allowing for tax avoidance through measures like this, so the Greens will vote against the SSI. The Presiding Officer: I call the minister to respond on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau. 17:53”
“I will be brief. On many recent occasions, the Government has introduced SSIs that give exemptions from land and buildings transaction tax for several different purposes, whether it is for freeports, economic investment zones or, as in this case, co- ownership authorised contractual schemes. There have been questions about whether such exemptions could give rise to opportunities for tax avoidance. When proposing the SSI at committee, the Minister for Public Finance was unable to give a clear explanation as to why the exemptions should be used in this case, nor could he give reassurance that a property transaction could not simply be dressed up as a financial transaction by means of investment vehicles.”
“I move amendment S6M-20819.3, to leave out from “strongly” to end and insert: “supports Scots law, international law and the rules- based order; respects the future of Greenland as a matter for the people of Greenland and Denmark; is unwavering in its solidarity with and support for Ukraine in the face of Russia’s illegal invasion; supports international sanctions against the Putin regime and the interdiction of its shadow fleet, and encourages the international community to secure a just peace acceptable to Ukraine.” 15:09”
“The amendment in my name would, instead, reaffirm our commitment—across the whole chamber, I would hope—to support domestic and international law and the rules- based order, which is relevant in the case of the recently interdicted Russian shadow fleet vessel; our commitment to support the future of Greenland determined by Greenland and Denmark; and our commitment to Ukraine and a just peace to which its people are agreeable.”
“Members will be aware of my track record in highlighting to the Council of Europe the suspected use of airports for rendition flights, and I fully understand why having legal agency in landing rights for flights is relevant and important. However, at present, foreign affairs, defence, national security and air transport policy powers are all reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament and the UK Government. The Green Party motion appears to invite us to consider taking steps in contravention of the Scotland Act 1998, which, clearly, we would not be able to do.”
“We will not hesitate to restate that position while maintaining ties of friendship and family with the US. We recognise that our relationship will be tested, and we will continue to speak out in support of Scotland’s interests and Scotland’s values. It is no surprise to any member in the chamber that I support Scotland becoming a sovereign state. That would involve the ability to determine our own defence and security policy and to underline our solidarity with neighbours and treaty partners, including the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, as a non- nuclear-hosting nation just like our Nordic neighbours. It would also allow this Parliament and Government to determine the use of our military and civilian air facilities and other facilities.”
“I will be clear, however: the US Air Force does not have a base at Glasgow Prestwick airport, has not operated one since 1966 and does not have any personnel based at the airport. Glasgow Prestwick airport does not determine the policy, destination or mission of any aircraft using facilities there. Instead, it provides regulated aviation services in line with UK law, international aviation standards and long-standing agreements between allied nations. Sometimes, friends and allies act in ways with which we disagree, and we disagreed fundamentally with the US in relation to Greenland— Ross Greer: Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention? Angus Robertson: I have already said that I am not taking further interventions. We disagreed fundamentally with the US in relation to Greenland, and we spoke against threats of economic coercion.”
“Will the cabinet secretary give way? Angus Robertson: I will not take an intervention at this time. I have already taken one. There is no doubt that the Maduro regime in Venezuela was illegitimate. However, as the First Minister has said, it is hard to see how international law has been respected. I also recognise that recent statements by the US Government about Greenland have risked destabilising the international order. Across history, smaller nations have been exposed to threats from more powerful nations. In that case, a strong and unified response saw European nations stand behind the principles of sovereignty and self-determination, and that unity has produced results. The US is our ally. The bonds of friendship between the people of Scotland and the US run deep.”
“I would be grateful if the member could forward me information about those cases, because that sounds very concerning. I would like to look a lot more closely at that and to draw the issue to the attention of the council.”
“The cabinet secretary may have seen a recent report by The Ferret about the growth of book-ban campaigns across Scotland, many of which are motivated by homophobia and transphobia. Does the cabinet secretary agree that, if such toxic culture war techniques began to grow here, as they have done in the US, it would be extremely harmful to Scotland’s libraries? Does he agree that the Scottish Government should ensure that clear guidance is put in place to enable libraries and librarians to resist book-ban campaigns? Angus Robertson: I listened closely to what has just been raised, which is a matter of concern. Our proceedings are watched outside the chamber, including by the likes of the Scottish Library and Information Council.”
“I and my fellow Greens will abstain on it, but we will vote in favour of the motion, whether or not the amendment passes. It will be a missed opportunity, as the bill could have gone forward for scrutiny, if only to save time in the next parliamentary session. Sue Webber: Will Patrick Harvie give way? Patrick Harvie: I am afraid that I do not have time. My party will make clear commitments. It is incumbent on every political party, including the SNP, to make clear commitments. If the SNP, reading the polls, expects to be returned as the Government in the next session, it will be particularly important that it gives a clear manifesto commitment about supporting a cross-party effort to bring forward the FOI reform that is so long overdue. 14:57”
“As far as the amendment goes, I recognise the lead committee’s concern, particularly in regard to where we are in the past six weeks or so of the parliamentary session. We all understand why we have got to where we are and—I repeat—part of that is due to the Government’s slowness to act. However, I understand the Government’s concern about the need to have a system that balances the potential conflict of different legal duties. We would not want to pass legislation that made organisations unable to respect confidentiality, for example, or that would create a conflict between those duties and FOI duties. We are where we are. I think that this will be a missed opportunity. It is fairly clear that the amendment is likely to have the majority of support in the chamber.”
“As a member of a party that does not have a member on the lead committee, I took the time to engage with the member in charge and the minister. I thank the committee for its work, as well. It is regrettable that a member’s bill was necessary to try to achieve progress; there was a general consensus that reform is needed, and it would have been better delivered if Government legislation had been introduced. However, the Government has been slow to act, both in bringing forward reform and in exercising the powers that it already has to extend FOI to other bodies. Of the various elements of the bill, the granting of that power to the Parliament, in addition to the Government, is one of the most important, along with the shift in focus towards proactive publication and measures to take action against the destruction of information.”
“As Katy Clark mentioned, there were comments at the tail end of the previous session from the Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee, demonstrating “clear weaknesses with the current legislative framework.” Referring to the work of the Parliament in this session, the committee recommended “that the next Parliament robustly pursues the Committee’s recommendations to ensure that the Scottish Government makes the necessary changes.” Well, the Scottish Government did not make those changes, so I strongly commend Katy Clark for the work that she has done in introducing her member’s bill to try to move things along. I will certainly vote in favour of the general principles. I thank Katy Clark for her work, and I thank the Government for engaging with me.”
“I suspect that no one designing the FOI regime at the time would have been able to conceive of the sheer volume and breadth of data that public services now collect and have to manage—data that is now open to FOI. The case for reform is therefore not new either.”
“It would not be a Richard Leonard speech if it did not begin with a quotation from a great philosopher. If I am lucky enough to be returned in the election I will miss those kinds of comments. I hope that somebody else will take up that tradition for him. When discussing freedom of information, we sometimes suffer from a perception that FOI is still a new system or a new regime. It is clearly of the modern age but, as Katy Clark pointed out in the opening speech, it is nearly a quarter of a century since the system was designed. It was designed for an earlier era, both in terms of how public services are delivered and in terms of how modern data collection happens.”
“Property tax has an important role to play in a diverse tax system. Consultation after commission after commitment has not resulted in action, so we have also worked hard, including in recent years, to pursue shorter-term small changes. I am very pleased that we have managed to have success in some of those efforts in recent years; we have made small changes. However, the situation cannot last—we all acknowledge that the system is broken, out of date and chronically unfair. It needs to change, but all we do is keep tweaking at the edges to try to ameliorate the unfairness a little bit. That cannot continue. Every political party needs to make a solid commitment in May to the reform of council tax and needs to be ready to act on those commitments after May, whoever is returned by the public in whatever numbers. 16:23”
“Of those who expressed a view in the opinion poll, a massive 84 per cent wanted political parties to make clear commitments in the coming election campaign to reforming council tax, while a negligible proportion—just 2 per cent—thought that people in low-value homes ought to be paying proportionately more, in relation to their property values, than people in higher-value housing. That shows negligible support for the status quo and for the unfairness of the current system. We in the Greens have done our best over many years to make the case for reform, not just arguing for it but doing the detailed work to show what a land value tax and then a mixed-base property tax based on modern property values would look like and how that could be made to work, as well as setting out the reasons why a property tax is still important.”
“That gap has increased dramatically as property prices have increased, so the system is even more unfair—probably dramatically more unfair—than it was then. We know that most households are in the wrong band. How on earth can we justify the continuation of a tax when we know that most households and council tax payers are paying at the wrong rate? Polling shows that there is strong public support for reform. I acknowledge the work of Tax Justice Scotland, whose briefing sets out the polling.”
“There has been huge success in devolution, and I am a massive fan of a great deal of what the Parliament has achieved, but the reform of council tax is a long-standing failure of multiple sessions and multiple Governments. The idea of levying a property tax based on property values set in 1991 is absurd enough in itself, but how long do we allow that situation to continue? If 35 years out of date is not bad enough, will we allow it to be 40 years out of date, 50 years out of date or 60 years out of date? How much more broken can the system become? Even in 1991 it was an unfair system, with the ratio of the highest to lowest tax payments being 3:1 and the ratio of the highest to lowest property values being 8:1.”
“I am not very surprised at my immediate feelings of frustration about how the debate is starting. There were some important and legitimate points that I agreed with in Michael Marra’s speech. However, tribalism is not going to take us anywhere, and finger pointing about the problem will not result in a solution. Clearly, there are those who have worked hard to try to achieve reform of the council tax, and there are those who have stalled, blocked it or just not tried. I do not think that the public care very much about that. They have a right to feel that the Parliament as a whole—all of us—have collectively failed to reform council tax over decades.”
“The last thing that I want is to waste more time than the time that has already been wasted by the member who has brought the bill through the process— Members: “Wasted”?”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I wish to raise an issue in relation to rule 9.6.4 of standing orders, which states that, “Once the lead committee has reported on the Bill, the Parliament shall consider the general principles of the Bill”, and also in respect of the parts of standing orders that define the role of the Presiding Officer in determining any question as to the interpretation or application of standing orders. I have been in Parliament for a while now, and I do not recall us ever being in a situation where a bill is taken through the entire stage 1 process and is then withdrawn at the very last minute, when members are expecting to take the debate forward.”
“Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Fruit and Vegetables) (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2026 [Draft]”
“If there are members such as Rhoda Grant, Davy Russell, Finlay Carson and Tim Eagle who want to see a resurgence of greyhound racing in Scotland, with all the resultant injury and death to dogs, they are free to vote against the bill and to send a signal for racing to start up again and expand in Scotland. I point to the comments of the owner of the Thornton greyhound racing track, who has said that the only reason why he has not expanded greyhound racing at the track is because of the campaign and the bill. Those are the only things that are preventing greyhound racing from expanding in Scotland. For the rest of us, who want to end the suffering of the dogs, let us vote for the bill at stage 1. Let us get the ban over the line before dissolution.”
“It has been extremely difficult to prosecute for “unnecessary suffering”, because greyhound racing is an inherently lawful activity. He points to licensing being the way forward, but licensing is the problem. We have licensed greyhound racing at the moment, and injuries and deaths are happening on licensed tracks as well as on unlicensed tracks. It is just not the case that licensing will be a solution. I see that time is moving on, Presiding Officer, so I will conclude. There is an opportunity for MSPs to be on the right side of history tonight.”
“The one thing that I would pick up in regard to the Welsh Government’s work on the issue is that it has made a commitment to review wider licensing of the transport, kennelling and breeding of greyhounds. That is an area on which the Scottish Government should work with the Welsh Government. Finlay Carson: Will Mark Ruskell give way on that point? Mark Ruskell: I need to make progress. There is unfinished business in that regard. Although that is not part of the bill that I have introduced, which is narrowly drawn, the Scottish Government must certainly do work on that. To answer Tim Eagle’s point about the existence of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, I would say that that has not been effective.”
“Mark Ruskell: I do not have time—I have a lot to get through. In addition, if we do not ban greyhound racing in Scotland, dogs will come from England, Wales and Ireland to race in Scotland, so I am concerned about those dogs, too. We can only legislate for Scotland. I would love greyhound racing to be banned in Newcastle and Sunderland, but we are in the Scottish Parliament. If Rhoda Grant wants greyhound racing to be banned across the UK, she should speak to her colleagues in Wales, who are pushing a bill through right now to achieve that in Wales, and she should speak to her UK Government colleagues, who have the opportunity to do the same at Westminster.”
“A number of members have raised the prospect of the activity going underground, but we can see a greyhound track from space. These are fast dogs that need big spaces in which to race. If the bill is passed, ministers will have the power, should they choose to use it, to define a track. Rhoda Grant’s suggestion that we will suddenly have figure-of- eight racetracks—a kind of Scalextric for greyhounds—is bizarre. I am not sure what would happen when they crossed over in the middle. That is fantasy stuff. The bill is well defined, and ministers would have the power to define a track, should they need to. Members have spoken of concerns about dogs that are being kennelled and traded in Scotland and then being taken over the border to England. Finlay Carson: Will Mark Ruskell give way?”