Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am not averse to doing that. I am more than happy to have those discussions with the owner of Thornton racetrack.

The bill does not propose to ban racing in all circumstances; it would ban racing on an oval track.

Is the timing relevant in relation to that position?

I absolutely accept that I have not contacted them. In my defence, on a number of occasions, I tried to go to the racetrack, but no racing was happening. Perhaps I could have made more of an effort to reach out to the owner and speak to him when there was no racing. I accept that, I will take it on board, and I will absolutely endeavour to do that now.

No, it is not. We do not anticipate a huge number of additional issues for dogs, but GBGB does a lot of work on rehoming dogs that have had specific injuries. I have visited a rehoming centre in my constituency, where GBGB pays to have the operations done. GBGB does that work itself, and I anticipate that it will continue to do so.

Yes.

It is to streamline enforcement and avoid the need to establish new court systems and processes, because we currently have the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006. There is suitable capability in that legislation to allow any enforcement to take place.

As I have said, there is potential for a licence to be brought in if somebody wants to open a straight track. It was Mr Ruskell’s change to a ban on racing on oval tracks that allowed the Government to change its position to supporting the principles of the bill.

Thank you.

I thank the committee for inviting me to give evidence on the Greyhound Racing (Offences) (Scotland) Bill on behalf of the Scottish Government. When the bill was first proposed, the Government adopted a neutral position. At that stage, the proposal sought to prohibit all greyhound racing in Scotland. Given the breadth of the proposal and the fact that the details of precisely what would be prohibited were still being developed, it was entirely pragmatic for the Government to reserve its position until the final content of the bill was known.

In addition, as the committee will be aware, the Scottish Government was also considering the feasibility of introducing statutory licensing for greyhound racing and whether that could drive the animal welfare improvements that we all want to see.

The bill that is now before the Scottish Parliament is narrower in scope in that it seeks specifically to prohibit the racing of greyhounds on oval tracks. The stated aim of the bill is to address the inherent welfare risks associated with the running of dogs at speed on oval tracks. Even with good practice, those risks cannot be eliminated entirely, and licensing would not eliminate them.

Having carefully considered the evidence that has been presented, the Scottish Government has agreed to support the general principles of the bill, as it recognises that it represents a proportionate response to those risks. As I have already highlighted to the committee and to Mr Ruskell, we will seek to make some amendments to the bill. However, I look forward to working with the member on those amendments in the weeks ahead.

Although we support the general principles of the bill, we are very mindful of the implications for the individuals and communities that are connected with greyhound racing in Scotland, especially those that are involved at the Thornton track in Fife. In recent years, the activity at Thornton has been on a small scale and largely informal. For many people who have continued to run their dogs there, that has been less about serious competition and more about companionship—it has offered a chance to meet friends and others with a shared interest, to socialise and to give their dogs a run on the track. Although I recognise that the bill will not prevent greyhound owners from meeting and socialising with others to exercise their dogs freely in open spaces, we must be cognisant of the bill’s impact on such social and community aspects.

We recognise that the bill addresses legitimate welfare concerns. In practice, it will affect only a very small number of individuals and animals, given the current minimal activity at Thornton, although it will prevent oval tracks from being set up for racing elsewhere in Scotland.

I want to briefly comment on the concerns that have previously been raised regarding the rehoming of greyhounds that might be given up as a consequence of the bill. For some time now, most owners who go to the Thornton track have kept their greyhounds more as pets than as competitive racing dogs. On that basis, we do not anticipate significant displacement, nor do we expect a major rehoming challenge to arise.

Finally, I want to emphasise that the Government’s position on the bill relates solely to the specific welfare concerns that are based on the evidence that has been presented regarding the racing of greyhounds on oval tracks. It should not be interpreted as indicating a wider position on other animal-related sports or activities, each of which has its own circumstances and regulatory framework.

I hope that that gives some clarity on the Government’s reasoning and on the considered approach that we have taken in reaching our position. I will be happy to take questions from the committee.

Because Mr Ruskell’s bill is now about banning—