Official Report 828KB pdf
Welcome back. Our second agenda item is an evidence session with Mark Ruskell on the Greyhound Racing (Offences) (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. Mark is the member in charge of the bill. I welcome Mark to the meeting, along with Nick Hawthorne, senior clerk, and Liz Anderson, assistant clerk, from the Parliament’s non-Government bills unit, and Alison Fraser, from legal services.
We have allocated around an hour and 15 minutes for the discussion. As always, we have quite a few questions, so I ask members to be succinct with their questions and answers.
I invite Mark Ruskell to make an opening statement.
Thank you, convener. I declare an interest: I am an honorary member of the British Veterinary Association.
I introduced the Greyhound Racing (Offences) (Scotland) Bill in April this year, and I welcome the Scottish Government’s indication that it supports the general principles of the bill. I thank the committee for its work over the past three years in looking at the bill and the wider welfare issues of greyhound racing.
The extensive evidence that the committee previously took helped me to focus the bill on the central concern that racing greyhounds around a track at high speed results in injuries and long-term suffering of the dogs and, in too many cases, can lead to their deaths. The evidence points to the numbers, but behind every number is a real dog facing real suffering, and I want us to end that suffering.
The bill will make it illegal for someone who owns or is responsible for a greyhound or a racetrack to race, or to allow the racing of, a greyhound on an oval racetrack in Scotland. The offences set out in the bill apply to greyhound racing at licensed and unlicensed racetracks and cover any racing activity, including time trials and sales trials.
The offences cover tracks that are oval in shape. All racetracks in Scotland are oval in shape, which should ensure that no further greyhound racing takes place in Scotland.
The bill also allows the Scottish ministers to regulate to make it illegal to race greyhounds on other types of tracks. Therefore, should a new racecourse with, for example, a straight track be opened, the Scottish Government could extend the offences in the bill to cover that track, should it be deemed to pose a risk to greyhounds.
The bill provides that, if someone is convicted of an offence, they may be subject to a fine or a prison sentence. The court may also impose other penalties. Those include preventing someone from owning or keeping a greyhound that was present when the offence was committed; banning someone from owning, keeping or working with a greyhound for a period of time; and taking a greyhound away from someone who has previously been banned from owning, keeping or working with a greyhound but who has continued to do so.
The penalties and enforcement powers are based on those that are set out in existing animal welfare legislation. I note that, in the Scottish Government’s memorandum to the committee, it suggested that the enforcement powers be modified. I also note the Scottish Government’s suggestion that the bill be amended so that the commencement date of the act would be determined by the Scottish ministers. I am content to work with the Scottish Government on amendments in all those areas.
I again thank the committee for its work, and I am happy to answer questions.
Thank you, Mr Ruskell. Can you talk us through the consultation and engagement that you undertook to develop the bill? As you will be aware, the committee previously took evidence on a petition to ban greyhound racing. At that point, there appeared to be a lack of evidence of prosecutions or involvement of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in animal welfare related to racing. Can you give us an idea of how you established an evidence base for prohibiting racing in Scotland?
I point to the evidence that the committee has gathered: the six evidence sessions, the public call for views on the bill, and the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission report, which focused on what happens in Scotland and reviewed some of the scientific work on the inherent risk of racing dogs around oval tracks. I also point to the licensing review that the Scottish Government conducted and all the evidence that came from that.
Regarding the evidence base and the consultation around my member’s bill, I undertook consultation during 2024. I hope that the committee has some of that evidence and the responses before it. A number of organisations gave evidence as part of that process, including the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service; GBGB, which is the Greyhound Board of Great Britain; animal welfare charities; and a number of individual professionals who race greyhounds in the Scottish sector.
Through the consultation, extensive evidence was also given by people who had rehomed greyhounds. I had dozens of testimonies from those individuals; I will read out one or two. Somebody said:
“I have seen the devastating impact that greyhound racing has. These dogs arrive not as dogs but as traumatised machines. They are scared by the littlest, most common, things and don’t know how to function in a normal home.”
Somebody else said:
“My second dog was a rescue. His owner was caught giving the dog high doses of painkillers so he could still race on a badly injured wrist. The injury affected him for the rest of his life, continually swelling and ending up with chronic arthritis.”
Another person said:
“I adopted an ex-racing greyhound in 2017. When I adopted him, he looked moth-eaten, very thin, had patches of dandruff all over his coat and an old injury to his hock which he got while racing. He had bull-back legs caused by friction and being forced into traps to race. He had separation anxiety for the remainder of his life. I had to change my job to accommodate his needs.”
Here is a final one. It makes difficult reading.
“I adopted an ex-racer. His body is broken from racing. He has sore legs, came to me with an amputated tail, a sore back. This has not gone away after four years. My ex-racer was retired at two years old after allegedly only four races. His body is broken from it. He takes pain medication every day. His teeth were all worn down from gnawing at the cage he was in in kennels, and he has a sore back from being hit. Despite this, he’s the most gentle and kind boy.”
The evidence base shows us that there is an inherent risk in racing a dog at high speed around a curved track. The implication of that is that the dogs leave the industry when they are very young and are rehomed. The evidence that we have from the rehomers is absolutely critical. The committee has also had stats from GBGB. It has the empirical and scientific evidence that explains that inherent risk.
The evidence and testimony that you have given is distressing. However, we need to focus on greyhound racing in Scotland. Of the examples that you have just given, how many relate to dogs that had been raced in Scotland?
All are examples of dogs that have raced on oval tracks. They will be a mixture of dogs that have come from England and dogs that have come from Scotland. The critical point of the bill is that it focuses on the inherent risk of racing a dog around an oval track. All the tracks that exist in Scotland are oval in nature. They are the same as the tracks that exist in England. The inherent risk is well understood and well studied. It has been shown what that risk is and the impact that it can have on the dogs.
What I am pressing you on is that the bill sets out—rightly—to address animal welfare issues in Scotland and to prohibit greyhound racing in Scotland, so, although the testimony that you have given us is distressing, it is important that we understand accurately how many such situations came about as a result of racing on oval tracks in Scotland. With the best of intentions, your bill is not going to address the issues around greyhound racing outwith Scotland. It is therefore important that the evidence absolutely focuses on racing on oval tracks in Scotland. Of the testimonies that you read out, how many of those cases came about as a result of dogs racing in Scotland?
We had 789 responses to the consultation on the bill, 86 per cent of which were fully supportive of the proposal to ban greyhound racing in Scotland. As I have said, a lot of evidence has come from the industry and from academics that focuses on the risk of racing on an oval track. The committee has received lots of evidence on the impact—
Sorry, Mark—I must interrupt you, because it is an important question. I am not doubting the evidence that you have given us or the fact that there is an inherent risk in dogs racing on oval tracks, but the bill will apply in Scotland, so we must have an indication of how effective it will be and how many dogs we will protect from racing. Of the examples that you have given us, how many involved dogs that were injured while racing in Scotland? I say again, with all due respect, that the bill would not bring any animal welfare benefits for dogs that race south of the border or elsewhere.
I will highlight the Scotland-specific data that the committee has received in the past. I point to the figures that were collected at Shawfield stadium, when it was running, between 2018 and 2020, which were produced as a result of it being licensed by the Greyhound Board of Great Britain. During that period, there were 197 injuries and 15 fatalities. We know that the injury rate at Shawfield is comparable to that at every other greyhound racing stadium across the UK.
Where specific data is available—a number of the people who have given testimony have taken dogs from Shawfield and Thornton, as well as from England—we can see that there is an impact on the dogs. Being raced on an oval track involves the same inherent risk, regardless of whether they are raced in England, Wales or Scotland.
Good morning. My question is in a similar vein. It is about independent tracks. The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission’s report included a summary that said:
“Independent tracks, although they may provide some social benefit, do impose some specific risks on dog welfare through the lack of immediate veterinary care to injured dogs and general veterinary oversight of dog welfare.”
It also recommended that
“no further new greyhound tracks are permitted in Scotland”.
Mark Ruskell just mentioned Shawfield stadium. I think that it is proposed that that stadium be demolished for housing, so there will be no more racing in Rutherglen.
I am interested in how the data from independent tracks compares with that from the GBGB tracks. You have almost said it all already, based on the Shawfield evidence.
In many ways, the unlicensed track that runs in Scotland at Thornton is an underground track. It does not collect or report figures to GBGB. However, the nature of that track is similar to every other greyhound racing track in Scotland and across the UK, so the inherent risk is the same. The peer-reviewed scientific evidence shows that there is an inherent risk in racing a dog around an oval track. When the dogs reach the first curve, they face a centrifugal force on their bodies. There is the risk of them colliding as the pack of four to six dogs narrows to chase the lure. There is the impact on and the injury to their left front leg and their rear right leg. Those injuries do not change depending on whether the track is licensed or unlicensed.
On your point about whether licensing brings some marginal animal welfare benefits, although having a vet at the trackside is undoubtedly beneficial if a dog gets injured, the purpose of the bill is to prevent such injuries from happening in the first instance. It is through racing at high speed on oval tracks that those injuries occur.
Last week, we heard that we are talking about speeds of almost 40mph—that is around 64kph—on the first bend. Those high speeds can lead to the greyhounds being injured.
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.
11:15
Good morning. The Thornton greyhound track is thought to have ceased racing activity around the time that the bill was introduced. How do you think that that impacts on the need for the proposed legislation?
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 am aware that the scope of the bill is about banning racing in Scotland. However, as I understand it, it will not directly affect dogs that are kennelled or trained in Scotland and then sent to race in England. I appreciate that it may not be possible or practical for us to legislate on that. Could you say a bit about that issue, which must have been raised during the consultation?
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.
Showing intent to transport dogs elsewhere for the purpose of racing is not within the scope of the bill. Is that correct?
I do not believe that that would be within the scope of the bill. The committee will have received the memorandum from the minister and can reflect on the evidence that he gave last week. I am not discounting the fact that there are still issues and that greyhounds will probably still suffer, but transporting dogs is a wider issue that the Government would need to consider.
Thank you.
The SAWC report highlighted the possibility of greyhounds continuing to be owned, bred, trained and kennelled in Scotland for the purpose of racing in England. During the call for views and the development of the bill, were any mechanisms suggested that could curtail that behaviour?
I would need to reflect on individual submissions, particularly those that have come from animal welfare charities, but that has been an area of discussion with them. There is an understanding among animal welfare charities that the bill has a narrow focus; it is focused on the inherent risk associated with racing a greyhound in Scotland. However, there is a wider concern. Again, it is a question for the Scottish Government as to how it will address that concern. I would like to see some progress in that area, but that should not detract from what the bill is trying to achieve, which is the first step of establishing an offence of racing a greyhound in Scotland.
The issue comes on the back of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 not being able to address the issues that surround the racing of greyhounds in Scotland. That is partly because greyhound racing is inherently a lawful activity, so it has been difficult to prove that there has been unnecessary suffering of greyhounds. The 2006 act has not worked, in that it has not dealt with that inherent suffering. Therefore, the only way forward, as I see it, is to bring in the offence of racing a greyhound.
My hope is that other jurisdictions will perhaps follow Scotland’s lead. The Welsh bill is going through the Senedd at the moment and there is an active discussion about the issue in Ireland. There are countries, states and jurisdictions around the world that have gone ahead and banned greyhound racing while this committee has been taking evidence. There is a direction of travel and an international consensus that creating the offence of racing a greyhound is the right way to go. I hope that, over time, such consensus will result in benefits for all dogs.
You stated that any such mechanisms would be outwith the scope of the bill, which is worthwhile on its own. However, would you be open to pressing the Scottish Government to introduce an accompanying scheme that would require any person who keeps or trains a greyhound in Scotland for the purpose of racing anywhere in the UK—or any premises where greyhounds are kept or trained for that purpose—to have a statutory licence? That could maybe allow the Government to put restrictions on transporting greyhounds out of Scotland to race.
I have not taken evidence on that. On the back of the committee’s evidence and the work that it has done on this issue for many years, my conclusion was to create the offence that is in the bill. That has been the focus. If there were to be wider consideration of a licence, that would be a question for the Scottish Government.
The scope of the bill, should it get to stage 2, will be a matter for the convener. My view, and the view of the Scottish Government, is that we should focus on the stand-alone offence. I do not discount the wider issues. If you wish to discuss the matter further with the minister or with me, I would be content for that discussion to happen.
That is good to know. My primary concern is that, even when racing was happening in Scotland, the number of ex-racing greyhounds that were being rehomed in Scotland seemed to be a lot higher than the number that were being raced here. Clearly, wider welfare concerns apply to the situation that the member is trying to address with the bill.
Are there other welfare issues for greyhounds away from the track that you have looked at and that you want to see prioritised for next steps?
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.
I call Ariane Burgess.
Emma Roddick’s question brought the answer that I was looking for.
Okay. My question for you, Mark, is this: why did you not take a different approach to the bill that would have addressed the wider animal welfare issues? If the bill were to go through without amendments addressing those issues, which you have suggested would be outwith the scope of the bill, no dogs would benefit from the bill, because there is no racing on oval tracks in Scotland. Given that all the evidence that you have given the committee surrounds dogs that are raced in England, why did you not take a different approach? Why is the bill so narrow when a lot of the concerns are about dogs racing outwith the country? Concerns were also raised about kennelling, which the bill does not address.
I push back on the point that there is no evidence in Scotland. The committee has received evidence on the inherent risk associated with greyhound racing in Scotland.
On my approach, I reiterate that this is a member’s bill, and if the committee wants to examine the issues of licensing and animal transportation, it will have to look way beyond greyhounds and probably way beyond other dogs, as other animals could also be included. The Government has a responsibility to look at some of those wider issues, but I believe that the most appropriate way forward is to focus on introducing legislation that creates a stand-alone offence of racing a greyhound around a track. It is also the way forward that the Welsh Government is choosing.
I feel that it is a potential missed opportunity, because although there is no racing on oval tracks in Scotland, your evidence is that there is still an issue with animal welfare as it relates to dogs racing. As Emma Roddick suggested, why did you not consider having an element of licensing in the bill that could cover a lot of those aspects? The bill is so narrow that it is questionable whether, in the absence of any racing on oval tracks in Scotland, it will deliver anything. You said that the wider issues are the Government’s responsibility, but the bill was a fantastic opportunity to address most of the animal welfare issues that you used in evidence to support your bill.
I go back to what I said about the evidence that the committee has had from the owner of Thornton, who wants to start racing again and expand racing in Scotland. I do not therefore think that it is a given that no dogs will ever race again in Scotland, even if the bill does not go through. Indeed, the reverse might be the case. The evidence that the committee took from the person who is running the last remaining greyhound stadium in Scotland suggested that.
11:30The wider issues are matters for other jurisdictions around the UK. A bill is going through in Wales, and discussions are also taking place at Westminster. Ultimately, the only way to deal with issues around the welfare of greyhounds is to end greyhound racing. Introducing licensing will not bring about those benefits or tackle the inherent risk.
The figures that we have, which have come from the licensed industry, do not show that the picture has improved in the years during which that data has been gathered. Despite the attempts of the licensed industry to bring in a better welfare strategy for greyhounds in 2022, and despite the introduction of new standards of track maintenance, the picture has not shifted fundamentally. The licensed sector is now highly licensed, but dogs are still being injured and killed in that sector. I believe that the figures for the past year show that the number of deaths has gone up.
I do not see licensing as a way of tackling that inherent risk. I think that the Scottish Government has come to the same conclusion on the back of the SAWC report and by looking again at the evidence and the numbers that have been coming through. Licensing has not worked. If licensing had worked and there had been no or hardly any injuries or deaths, we would be having a different conversation. However, the view of all the animal welfare charities, the Scottish Government and SAWC centres around the same conclusion, which is that licensing has not delivered that result. If the suggestion is that we need to create a bespoke licensing provision that might help the dogs in some way, my response is that licensing has not worked up to now, and it certainly will not deal with the fundamental issue of the number of dogs that are being killed and injured.
We will move on to sections 1 and 2, on offences and penalties. Tim Eagle has some questions.
Good morning, Mark. I have a couple of quick questions for you. First, the approach that you have taken in the bill is to criminalise the track owner and the individual who is racing their greyhound. That is quite different from the provisions in the Welsh bill, which focuses on the greyhound racing venue and those organising greyhound racing. Can you explain a little bit more about why you have taken that approach in your bill?
We have taken that approach because we believe that it is more comprehensive. We do not want to create a loophole that means that the track owner can be penalised but those who are racing the dogs, putting them in the traps and providing them are not included. It is a more thorough approach.
My second question is about the maximum penalties that you have put in the bill. We heard from the minister last week that they are in line with those in the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006. When you were looking at the penalties, is that what you considered? How do they compare with what has been put into the Welsh bill?
The penalties in the bill derive from those in the 2006 act, which has been in operation for almost 20 years. The courts are used to applying those penalties appropriately. They are, of course, the maximum penalties that would be available—there is existing legal provision in that regard.
On the decisions of the Senedd, I note that there is a different devolution settlement in Wales. Scots law applies in Scotland, and I think that English law applies in Wales. We have Scots law within our jurisdiction, and the Parliament can adjust criminal penalties. That might explain some of the differences in approach.
I ask Nick Hawthorne to come in if he has additional detail.
I would not add much to that, except that the penalties in the bill match those in part 2 of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, and they were chosen because they are in line with that and other animal welfare legislation.
As you remarked, Mr Eagle, there is a different offence in the Welsh bill, which does not apply the offence to the owner of the greyhound. That might account for some of the differences in the penalties. However, the Scottish bill is set against a different legal system, so we would expect there to be differences in some of the details.
Have you reflected on those differences, Mark? Imprisonment is not mentioned in the Welsh bill, but it is in yours. Have you reflected on whether you think that that is absolutely necessary?
It is in line with the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006.
Would you consider a more bespoke model?
I go back to the fundamental point that the Scottish Parliament is concerned with Scots law. I do not believe that the Welsh Senedd has the ability to apply penalties of that kind, because it applies English law.
We are talking about bringing in penalties. Why is there a need for that? Why does self-regulation not work?
Self-regulation is the system that we have at the moment. In that system, there are licensed tracks, they have a set of rules and they are responsible for enforcement of the rules. However, data from the licensed part of the sector shows that the inherent risk is not going down; dogs continue to be killed and injured. There are examples of trainers falling foul of GBGB rules and being struck off, but that does not affect the fundamental picture of the number of dogs that are being injured or killed.
There are examples of GBGB trainers who have been found to be abusing animals, and it has taken a long time for those trainers to have their licences revoked. Evidence of that came through in the consultation. There was a Scottish dog connected with Shawfield called Dudleys Forever. A steward at Shawfield uncovered the dog in an absolutely dreadful state and reported it, but it took a long time to bring an inquiry and for the trainer to be effectively struck off. The dog had to be put down—it was half the weight that it should have been. It was in an absolutely dreadful state, as I said, yet it was very difficult for the Crown to get a prosecution for unnecessary suffering in that case.
It all comes back to the fact that licensing is not working. If it was working, would I be here today? I am not sure, but it is not working, which builds the case for the bill.
Earlier, my colleague Beatrice Wishart made the point that racing is not taking place at Thornton, and you said that Thornton is not so busy at the moment partly because of the work that this committee is doing and partly because of your work. We also had evidence of that from the call for views. The owner’s view is that it will move towards a more GBGB approach. However, given what you have said about what happened at the other track, if that approach was taken, we still could not have confidence in GBGB regulating and doing a good job.
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.
We move to questions on the definition of racetracks as oval.
The key area of disagreement between animal welfare groups in our targeted call for views was on restricting the ban to oval racetracks. Dogs Trust, for example, said that that might be a loophole. What is your response to that concern, and are you still confident that that is the correct approach?
The phrase
“A track that is oval”,
which is in the bill, defines every single track that exists in Scotland, the UK and Europe. In fact, I think that only three straight tracks exist in the world, two of which are in Australia. The other one, which is in New Zealand, will close shortly because the New Zealand Government is legislating against greyhound racing. The fact is that, in the industry, the act of greyhound racing takes place on an oval track.
Is it possible that some other form of greyhound racing might emerge in the future? That is unknown, as are the welfare implications thereof; all that we know is that straight tracks do not exist at the moment.
I have been focused on the fact that the bill needs to be future proofed—I have taken the views of GBGB into account there. In case examples of other types of track racing emerge in the future, it is important that there be a provision in the bill for ministers to be able to reflect on the evidence and change the definition of the track, should that be necessary and should there be an implication in relation to the welfare of greyhounds.
What we have in the bill as drafted is proportionate and reflects the reality of greyhound racing pretty much everywhere around the world right now. Is there a risk of straight tracks emerging? These dogs run fast, so you would need a very long track, investment in a stadium and a complete reconfiguration of the way that greyhound racing operates in the UK.
When GBGB and trainers were in front of the committee some time ago, a number of questions were asked about straight tracks, and it was not clear at all that the industry might go there. However, if there is a move towards another type of racing or track configuration, the power is in the bill for the Government to take a proportionate approach, look at the evidence and propose to the Parliament through secondary legislation that that definition be changed. I note that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has looked at that provision in the bill for amending regulations and is content with it.
On that point, New Zealand is legislating against greyhound racing completely, but the bill specifically mentions “oval” tracks. We know that oval racing does not take place in Scotland at the moment, but you are saying that we need to legislate in case it happens in the future; straight tracks do not exist in Scotland at the moment. Why did you not go for a ban on greyhound racing—full stop? Was it because it was unlikely that the Scottish Government would have supported your bill in that instance?
I refer back to the work of the committee. You commissioned the report from the SAWC, which reflected the scientific evidence, and the scientific evidence reflected the inherent risk of dogs racing around an oval track. It is about what happens on that first curve, the centrifugal forces, the way that the dogs collide in the congestion at that first turn and the injuries and deaths that occur as a result. I have endeavoured to introduce an evidence-based bill that reflects the evidence that the committee has had.
The thinking has evolved over time as the committee has taken evidence. There is potential to go further and to have an all-encompassing definition of a track should the need arise. However, I do not see the need to put that into primary legislation, because this legislation needs to follow the evidence, and the evidence that you and I have had is about the risk that is inherent in oval tracks. That is the starting point.
I suppose that my question roots in the fact that the minister was unable to tell us what had changed in the Government’s position. The evidence that he gave us as part of the petition process has not changed very much. In fact, the statistics over the intervening period have improved—although they might be only a tiny bit better—yet the Government still decided to go for a ban. You have talked about the bill being evidence based, but the Government changed its view on oval track racing without the evidence to suggest that it should have done so.
I noted the questions that you asked last week, convener. I would say only that the Government has had time to reflect on the evidence and that the SAWC is advising the Government, too. In the memorandum that the committee received, the minister and his officials underlined the key parts of the evidence that the SAWC raised in relation to that inherent risk and the scientific basis for it.
11:45I also note that the minister said last week that, despite some earlier scepticism, the Government had kept an open mind on the bill and had said that it would wait to see what was brought forward. I have now introduced a bill that I believe reflects the evidence, and I am grateful that the Scottish Government has reconsidered the evidence and moved from a neutral position to supporting the general principles of the bill.
Okay. Thank you. We move to a question from Rhoda Grant.
My question for Mark Ruskell follows on from that.
As we heard previously, the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission has taken a different view; it believes that all greyhound race tracks should be banned. Have you spoken to and engaged with the SAWC? Do you understand why it has taken a different view, and has that not changed your mind?
I have engaged with the SAWC. I think that it is fair to say that the SAWC sees its role as advising the Government rather than individual members, but I have certainly reflected on its previous report and its recommendations. The bill directly addresses a number of those recommendations, particularly the recommendation that the SAWC does not believe that there should be more tracks in Scotland or that tracks should reopen. That central concern is addressed in the bill.
Is it? The SAWC is very clear that there should be no tracks, whereas your bill talks about oval tracks.
The SAWC’s evidence in its report, which was provided to the committee, focused on the inherent risk of oval tracks, and the bill would end the operation of and the racing of dogs on oval tracks.
We move to enforcement provisions, with questions from Alasdair Allan.
I am interested to know about the powers in the bill in relation to deprivation and disqualification and the seizing of animals. How would those actually work, as opposed to the way in which the analogous powers—which have been mentioned—in the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Act 2023 currently work? What are the differences?
I felt that it was important to put those powers in the bill, which makes it different from the Welsh bill. If someone committed an offence under this bill and raced dogs around a racetrack, that would raise questions about the welfare of those dogs. I believe that it is appropriate for the courts to have at their disposal the option of disqualifying somebody from working with or owning a dog, and for there to be powers of seizure in relation to that.
I will bring in Nick Hawthorne to go into where those provisions come from and how that relates to the legislation that you mention.
With regard to the court order powers, Mr Ruskell wanted to ensure that the offence provisions were properly enforced. He took the decision that he wanted the courts to have at their disposal the option of making those orders. They are consistent with similar order-making powers in the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 and the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Act 2023. My understanding is that the provisions in the 2023 act are themselves based on the provisions in the 2006 act, but they are tailored for the specific offences in that act.
Similarly, the powers in the bill are very much based on those two other pieces of legislation but, again, they are tailored to the specifics of the offences that would be created. For example, there might be provisions in the 2023 act that relate to hunting with dogs, such as concealment of carcasses and applying the provisions to all breeds of dog—things such as that. The provisions in Mr Ruskell’s bill are specific to the offences that it would create, which is why there might be some slight differences. Ultimately, however, they are consistent with the provisions in those other two pieces of legislation, and it would be for the courts to decide whether to use any of those order-making powers.
Would the courts be required to make an order before a dog could be taken from its owner?
It would be for the courts to determine whether they wanted to make an order. Deprivation relates to depriving a person, and there might be reasons why the court would determine that that was appropriate. Disqualification means to disqualify somebody. The seizure order powers relate only to a breach of a disqualification order, so that is where they come in.
Last week, you indicated to the committee that you were in discussions with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities about amending the bill to allocate enforcement powers or responsibilities to local authorities in addition to Police Scotland, which would currently have sole responsibility for enforcement under the bill. Can you provide an update on that?
Yes. I have accepted the minister’s approach to amendments at stage 2. I have contacted COSLA and I have been in early discussions with the Scottish SPCA. I will look to conclude those discussions ahead of stage 2, assuming that the bill gets to stage 2.
I am mindful that there are resourcing issues, particularly for the SSPCA. The provisions in the bill relate to greyhound racing. There is one greyhound racing track in Scotland, so I do not see the enforcement provisions in the bill as being particularly onerous on inspectors or Police Scotland constables. A conversation is continuing with COSLA and the SSPCA, and I hope that we can find a way forward ahead of stage 2, if we get there.
Is this really a big issue? Someone cannot really hide an oval greyhound track. Is it a resourcing issue? Is it not the case that, if somebody reports that there is greyhound racing on an oval track somewhere, it is not going to be a big burden on the local authority or the police to investigate it?
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.
We will move on to questions about implementation, transition and review.
The policy memorandum sets out thoughts on what is envisaged for transition. Given that racing has further wound up at Thornton, what would the transitional arrangements need to be? What support would be available for the owners of the track and their employees?
I note that, for the time being, racing is not happening at Thornton. Through company records, we understand that two full-time equivalent employees are, or were, based there. It is not clear whether those employees are still working, given that no greyhound racing is taking place there.
I think that the biggest implication will relate to dogs. The Scottish Greyhound Sanctuary has said, I think, that they have already taken into their care the last three dogs that raced at Thornton. When Shawfield shut, animal charities, including the Dogs Trust, managed to successfully rehome all the dogs from there—I think that they have finally all been successfully rehomed. When it comes to transition, the biggest issue is the dogs.
When it comes to the owner’s aspirations for the future of the asset that he has at Thornton, that is a private matter and a private consideration. Reports have been compiled on the potential for housing in the area. One report has looked at the suitability of the site for housing, what economic investment that could bring to Fife and the kinds of jobs that could be created. That is a live discussion with Thornton community council, given that it has a local place plan and there are housing allocations.
Those are private matters regarding what will happen afterwards. The situation right now is that Thornton is not operational. Nothing is happening there. One of the reasons why racing has stopped—alongside the campaigns and the evidence that has been taken around the bill—is that the bookie retired.
Given that it is the only track that will be impacted by the bill, have you sat down and spoken to the people? Have you spoken to local enterprise companies? Have you tried to get some support for the people, given that their business will be closing down? Have you had those discussions?
I have had some discussions. I have met Paul Brignal, particularly when he came to the committee, and I have received some correspondence from him. The tone of some of that correspondence is a little difficult when it comes to opening up a constructive conversation. The work that was done to look at an alternative use for the Thornton stadium and the economic impact that that could bring is a useful piece of information, but it was certainly not part of the evidence that I brought forward with the bill.
I ask Nick Hawthorne to say a little about what is in the financial memorandum about the costs of implementation of the bill and how that relates to the question.
The financial memorandum looks at costs to other bodies, individuals and businesses. Paragraphs 27 to 29 acknowledge and try to set out some of the potential impacts on Thornton Greyhounds, specifically on full-time staff and potential economic impacts. In relation to what Mr Ruskell said, there is also some information on potential savings—on page 9—which deals with a report entitled “Economic Impact Assessment of Thornton Greyhounds and Alternative Uses”. I note that there is a link to that report in that part of the financial memorandum, in case that is helpful.
That would not impact on the staff. The owner could possibly recoup losses through the sale, but that would not—
The staff impacts have been acknowledged, as I said, and set out to the extent that we understood them. That information was taken from the published company accounts of Thornton Greyhounds and reports of evidence that it has given the committee about its level of staffing. However, as Mr Ruskell said, the understanding is that no racing is happening at the moment, and arrangements may have already been made when it comes to the staff.
They may have already been sacked.
They were part-time staff, I think, and they were probably running facilities at the venue such as bars. However, the greyhound track is not open, and it has not been open for some time.
Okay.
We know that the Thornton track is not operating at the moment, and we have heard from the Scottish Greyhound Sanctuary that there is a rehoming crisis. The lack of racing in Scotland has not reduced the number of greyhounds; the crisis relates to the churn of dogs that are still coming in from Ireland. Is there a need for more support in the rehoming sector in Scotland in general? Could your bill do anything to support the rehoming sector?
12:00
I do not want to see the rehoming of greyhounds that have had to be rescued from the industry because they have been damaged and face trauma; I want to end that. Those who work in the greyhound rehoming sector want to end greyhound racing as well. They do not want the problem of having dozens of dogs to rehome—and, let us face it, the majority of them come from England, where about 490 trainers are racing dogs. They do not want to have to deal with that trauma or with the rehabilitation of dogs and the extensive veterinary treatment that they require.
If there is a rehoming crisis—and I believe that there is one—it is being driven across the UK by the number of dogs that are being wasted month in, month out. Young dogs at the prime of their life are facing injuries. I read out some testimonies from individuals who have rehomed greyhounds, and they very much accord with my lived experience of doing that.
The way to tackle the rehoming crisis is to end greyhound racing and end the inherent risk. That is what the bill would do in Scotland and it is what the Welsh bill will do in Wales. It is for other jurisdictions to consider—as jurisdictions around the world have done—whether they want to continue with the same numbers of dogs coming through week in, week out. It is heartbreaking. Charities are trying to find forever homes for these dogs, but there are so many. Fundamentally, the way to address the rehoming crisis is to end the need to rehome greyhounds.
My question was partly answered earlier. I was going to ask about the Greyhound Board of Great Britain’s suggestion that racing would be driven underground. You have touched on that, but I do not know whether we have talked about the risk of moving to other types of racing or other breeds. Do you have any comments on any of that?
There has been no greyhound racing in Scotland for some time and I have seen no evidence of other types of racing emerging as a result, but it would be for the Government, charities and others to continue to review whether there is any kind of displacement. I have not heard any evidence of that and I do not remember the committee hearing substantial evidence of it, but we need to be alive to the possibility.
Perhaps the provision in the bill that alters the definition of the track is the way to address that. GBGB’s comments are important, and I have considered the issue of undergrounding, which is, in part, where the provision on the definition of a track comes from. If some other form of unregulated greyhound racing emerges, the Parliament, ministers, charities and those with an interest in animal welfare would want to be alive to the impacts. At that point, there would be a case for amending the legislation, and there is a mechanism for the Government to do that using a statutory instrument.
I have taken that into account, but do you think that anything else needs to be included in the bill to allow that to be monitored and to provide an option to make changes if needed?
I am not convinced that there is a case for that.
I have a technical question. You are clear that the bill has a tight and focused scope, and you have said that some of the other things that committee members have suggested could be included in it would be outwith its scope. This question might be one for Alison Fraser. The convener has to make some decisions about what is within the scope of a bill and what is outwith it. This bill is not particularly contentious, but decisions will have to be made on other bills that are coming up, including the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill.
Can you set out exactly what the legal implications are of ruling on what is within and what is outwith the scope of the bill? If amendments are lodged relating to kennelling, licensing or racing on other tracks other than oval tracks, would they be deemed, from the perspective of legal advice, to be within or outwith the scope of the bill, given its tight focus?
Ultimately, the decision on scope is for the convener, and I understand that you are advised by the legislation team. As such, that is not something that we would advise on. It would be improper for me to take that role from the legislation team.
The long title of the bill is
“An Act of the Scottish Parliament to make provision prohibiting the racing of greyhounds on racetracks.”
It does not say anything else. Long titles are often wider—for example, including the words “and related purposes”—but that is a short and succinct long title. However, the proper course is for the legislation team to advise you, convener.
Thank you very much. That is helpful.
As we have no further questions, I thank Mr Ruskell and those who have supported him in giving evidence this morning.
12:05 Meeting continued in private until 12:25.