Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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—

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.

The 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.

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 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 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.

I 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.

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.