Seòmar agus comataidhean

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. 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. 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.

The rest of this Official Report will be published progressively as soon as the text is available.

I thank all members for their wide-ranging contributions. I note the contributions from Mr Carson, who has spent quite a lot of the debate bolstering what was a minority view in the committee, rather than the view of the majority of committee members, who accept that there is an evidence base to push ahead with a ban.

I thank all the members who have spoken in favour of the ban and my bill—Gillian Mackay, Christine Grahame, John Mason, Rona Mackay and Maggie Chapman. I thank other members who have not been able to speak but who are deeply passionate about the issue, have engaged with the evidence—unfortunately, it appears that Mr Russell has not done so—and have concluded that we absolutely need to ban greyhound racing. Their personal support for me and for the work that my team and I have done on the bill has been superb over the past few years.

I am saddened that some members still feel that there is insufficient evidence. I am absolutely dripping in evidence—evidence that has come to the committee and to the Parliament over years and years, including from the industry itself. The saddening figures that come out every year detailing the injuries and deaths represent real dogs. It is incredibly sad to see that evidence coming in. We have also had the testimony of people such as me and hundreds of others across Scotland who have rehomed greyhounds and seen the long-term impact of injury and trauma on those dogs.

It is fair to say, on the issue of licensed or unlicensed tracks, that the committee had no evidence to show that the inherent risk of racing greyhounds at an unlicensed track was lower than that of racing a dog at a licensed track.

It makes no difference to the dog who the owner of a greyhound racing track is. The laws of physics do not magically change if the dog races at a track at Thornton, Newcastle or anywhere else. The evidence is the evidence, and the minister pointed to the scientific studies that show the impact on the dogs and how it results in injury and death.

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.

I am very proud to bring to the chamber a bill that gives us a momentous opportunity to end greyhound racing in Scotland and the suffering that those wonderful dogs face.

I acknowledge the hard work that it has taken to get here—of my staff, the non-Government bills unit and the tireless campaigners and members of the public who have consistently highlighted the suffering of greyhounds. Some of those people are in the public gallery this afternoon. I also thank the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee for its scrutiny of the issue over a number of years; the Scottish Government for its constructive approach to considering the bill as it has evolved; and members of all parties in the Parliament for their support.

The bill is necessary and long overdue. Scotland is considered a world leader in animal welfare, but it is one of only eight countries where commercial greyhound racing is still legal. Of those eight countries, New Zealand, Wales, the US and the state of Tasmania are in the process of introducing bans on the activity.

We have a unique opportunity to end this dangerous activity. There is huge public support for such a measure, and the industry is in decline. My bill was inspired, in part, by petition PE1758, which was brought to the Parliament by Scotland Against Greyhound Exploitation and signed by more than 30,000 members of the public. It is clear that greyhound racing is no longer welcome in Scotland. Polling shows that 68 per cent of Scots back the proposed ban.

The risk of injury and death is embedded in the design of greyhound racing. Greyhound racing on oval tracks is inherently dangerous. Racing at speeds of up to 40mph on an oval track exerts excessive force on the left fore and right hind limbs, leading to leg breaks and injury in the dogs. Collisions often occur at the first curve of the track due to the impacts of centrifugal force and the dogs bunching to keep the lure in their sight. Dogs collide with one another or the fencing, or stumble, resulting in catastrophic injuries that have lifelong impacts that are rarely seen in other dogs.

Many members have had the pleasure of meeting Sasha, an ex-racing dog who has visited Parliament on a number of occasions. Members might have noticed that Sasha has a limp and wears a shoe on her back right foot. That is because Sasha fell hard on the first bend of a trial race, resulting in her leg being broken in several places and leaving her with a permanently misshapen leg and paw. Her trainer was talked into surrendering her to a charity for further care and rehoming, rather than simply euthanising her. That injury was completely preventable and is exactly what the bill will put an end to in Scotland.

The sport is administered by the Greyhound Board of Great Britain, whose own data shows the inherent evidence-based risk of injury and fatality. Between 2017 and 2024, there have been more than 1,000 trackside deaths and more than 30,000 injuries across the United Kingdom, and, in 2024, there was an increase in the number of track fatalities.

There is no legal requirement for independent tracks such as Thornton—the only track that is left in Scotland—to record or publish data relating to fatalities and injuries. However, the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission has stated that there is no reason to believe that the risks at unlicensed tracks in Scotland are any different from or less than those at tracks elsewhere in the UK. Thornton, the last remaining track in Scotland, is nearly identical in size and track surface to the licensed track at Shawfield, at which there were 197 injuries and 15 deaths between 2018 and 2020, when it closed.

Some members will be thinking, “Why do we need this bill if the industry is in decline in Scotland and there is no active racing?” However, if the bill is not passed, there will be nothing to prevent greyhound racing from restarting, which would put more greyhounds at significant risk of injury and death. That is exactly what happened in Wales. The unlicensed Valley track in Wales became GBGB registered in 2023, racing increased fourfold and more dogs were injured as a result. Whether it is one or 100 greyhounds, that unnecessary harm should not be allowed to happen. Only by ending greyhound racing permanently can we ensure that that suffering ends.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Greyhound Racing (Offences) (Scotland) Bill.

My bill will achieve that by making it illegal for a person knowingly to use or permit the use of greyhounds in racing at race tracks. The offences set out in the bill cover oval tracks and therefore apply to racing at licensed and independent tracks, and they relate to any racing activity, such as races, timed trials and sales trials. Given that all race tracks in Scotland are oval, the bill should ensure that no further racing takes place. However, it also includes a provision that would allow Scottish ministers to regulate to include other types of tracks if they were to be opened and deemed to pose a risk to greyhound welfare. Should someone be convicted of an offence, they could be subject to a fine or prison sentence and might have other penalties imposed on them, such as being prevented from owning a greyhound.

My bill is tightly drawn, with the clear aim of ending the suffering that is caused directly by racing on oval tracks. However, I share wider concerns in relation to breeding, kennelling and transportation of dogs to tracks outside Scotland, and I encourage wider work by the Scottish Government, separate to the bill, to address those concerns. As long as greyhound racing remains legal, we will see injuries and deaths. I urge members to support the general principles of the bill. Let us take that first and critical step to ending the suffering of greyhounds in Scotland.

16:01

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.

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.

I have nothing further to add. I press amendment 20A.

I am tempted to wind up, Presiding Officer, but, given the hour, I will move straight to the question. I press amendment 141.

Amendment 141 agreed to.

Before section 33C

I moved an amendment at stage 2 to establish a national deer management programme. The aim of that was to set clear expectations on deer management targets for landowners and to provide strategic direction at a national level. I did not just pull that out of my head—it was a key recommendation of the independent deer working group’s report, which was accepted by the Government in 2021, and in fact, the Government stated in a programme for government that it wanted to deliver that. Therefore, I am a little surprised that the minister is saying that it is a one-size-fits-all approach and is not appropriate and that that is really not where we are going. That feels like quite a subtle change in policy and direction for the Government and it begs the question where the independent deer management working group report now sits with the Government. Is the Government continuing to work through those recommendations? Is it adopting recommendation 97, which has already appeared in a programme for government?

The purpose of having a national deer management programme is, in effect, to lower deer numbers, to ensure that the population is managed at a level where public health—particularly with regard to road safety and to Lyme disease—is under control and to make sure that impacts on nature restoration are minimised. That approach has a very strong public health and ecological basis. I have brought that back as amendment 98, acting in the spirit of the independent deer working group’s report by reflecting its specific proposal and asking members to vote on it.

Notwithstanding that, I appreciate the openness that the minister has shown between stage 2 and stage 3. We have had a discussion about the importance of seeing venison and deer as a resource and the need to give greater support to the venison sector. Of course we would like to see venison in more public canteens and local shops and making a contribution there.

However, a balance needs to be struck between the aims of having greater oversight of deer management for the purpose of advancing nature restoration and ensuring that there is a growing market for venison. I am still a little confused about where the minister’s priorities sit in that respect. There needs to be parity. Deer management is essentially about an ecological decision that needs to be taken to restore nature and to deal with public health issues. It cannot be dependent on the vagaries of a food supply chain market, which is often dominated by supermarkets. I am not clear whether we are in the same territory as the debates that we have had in the chamber on organic food, where there has been a reluctance to increase the scale of the organic sector if it does not meet market demand. I am wary of relying on market demand for venison to drive what should be ecological decisions about protecting and restoring nature.

I understand where the minister is coming from. However, to an extent, the provisions will rework the recommendations of the independent deer working group. Those voices were there in the process and the working group came to its conclusions after a long process. It feels as though the policy is evolving, but I am not 100 per cent sure which way it is going.

I will make a bit of progress.

I welcome the minister’s support for amendment 20E, although he also said that it is not necessary to involve the environmental and nature restoration sectors. Why not? We will do that anyway. Nevertheless, I welcome his support for the amendment.

The Parliament has a choice to make. Amendment 98 is clear; its provisions are what the Government signed up to and what was in the programme for government. If policy is evolving in a slightly different direction to be more about working with the market for venison, we should at least put the population estimates into the plan, ensure that NatureScot has a properly funded role to do what the independent working group wanted it to do and ensure that important voices for environment and nature restoration are consulted. Those are the purposes of my amendment to the minister’s amendment and of my amendment 98.

I move amendment 20A.

I hope that the minister acknowledges that the amendment is focused on protected sites. What is the point of a protected site if those who are charged with protecting those sites—such as NatureScot—cannot get in there and ensure that the destruction ends? This is a natural environment bill, and surely we should be following through on nature protection.

On the wider issue of deer management, there are welcome reforms throughout the bill, but on the issue of protected sites, I am disappointed. I would like to hear more from the minister about the priority of ensuring that our last remaining habitats do not just disappear because they were at the bottom of the in-tray.