Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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.

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 am not convinced that there is a case for that.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.