Official Report 797KB pdf
Agenda item 3 is an evidence session with the Scottish Government as part of our consideration of the Greyhound Racing (Offences) (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. I welcome to the meeting Jim Fairlie, the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity, who is joined by, from the Scottish Government, Andrew Voas, who is veterinary head of animal welfare, and Keith White, who is a lawyer. I also welcome Mark Ruskell.
We have allocated approximately 90 minutes for this session. We have quite a few questions to get through, so I ask members and the minister to be succinct in their questions and answers.
I will kick off. We understand that the Scottish Government supports the general principles of the bill, even though the minister told the committee in 2024 that it considered that an outright ban was not necessary, although it thought that there was a case for licensing. What has changed?
Would you prefer me to move straight to answering questions instead of making an opening statement?
No, I am quite happy for you to make an opening statement. That would be helpful.
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.
Thank you, minister.
I gave away my first question, but it still stands. What has changed? Back in 2024, you stated:
“the Scottish Government is not persuaded of the need to ban greyhound racing in Scotland.”
You were talking about racing on an oval track. You went on to say:
“In particular, we are not convinced that such a ban is a proportionate and fair response to the animal welfare concerns”.
You also cautioned
“against making assumptions about the current situation in Scotland and legislating to ban a sport ... without a sound evidence base for doing so.”
What has changed with regard to your having a sound evidence base for the existence of animal welfare concerns?
You said that there was an inherent risk in everything that we do and that greyhound racing was no different in that respect. You also said:
“no complaints have been made to the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals about the activities at Thornton ... and no enforcement action has been taken”.—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 22 May 2024; c 4.]
What evidence do you have to suggest that the situation has changed, such that there is now an inherent animal welfare issue that has led the Government to support the general principles of the bill?
When I gave evidence to the committee at that time, I had not met Mr Ruskell or looked at the specific considerations in relation to greyhound racing on an oval track, which is the aspect that the bill is now focused on. When Mr Ruskell introduced his bill, he spoke about dogs hitting that first bend at 40mph. There is no way of removing that risk while racing continues to take place on oval tracks. That is the specific reason why the Government is now prepared to support the bill.
Where is the sound evidence base for that?
The sound evidence base relates to oval tracks and dogs hitting the first bend at 40mph. Mr Ruskell has given evidence to the committee on how that affects the front part of the dog.
There is evidence to suggest that there are dangers to the dogs. There is also the danger that the speed at which they are going and the fact that they can lose their footing on that bend can result in collisions and the dogs hitting barriers. All those things put an inherent risk on that part of the track.
I am not sure that evidence from the member who introduced the bill is a sound evidence base.
You have commented that Thornton racetrack is inherently different from Greyhound Board of Great Britain tracks. Thornton is an oval track and GBGB tracks are oval tracks. What has changed to suggest that we should now ban racing at Thornton?
The proposal at that time was not about banning racing on oval tracks; it was about banning racing all over.
At that time, you did not suggest that there was an issue at Thornton, but now you are now suggesting that there is.
Because it is an oval track.
Okay.
You said then that you did not believe that the ban was proportionate. What has changed in terms of proportionality so that an all-out ban is now proportionate?
The bill does not propose to ban racing in all circumstances; it would ban racing on an oval track.
Is there any evidence that any other kind of racing takes place in Scotland?
Not in Scotland.
So, effectively, there would be an all-out ban on greyhound racing.
Not if somebody wants to set up a straight track.
I have a question from Tim Eagle.
Good morning. Can you talk us through the consultation, evidence gathering and engagement that the Scottish Government has undertaken over the past several years to develop its current position on the bill? Can you take into account Thornton racetrack’s concern that the only people who replied to the consultation on the bill were animal activists? How has the Government tried to make that all as broad as possible?
I will let Andrew Voas talk to the evidence gathering that has been done in the past number of years. However, I sat on the committee when Thornton greyhound racetrack owner gave evidence to it and I have spoken to a number of greyhound owners over the piece. In fact, when I gave evidence to the committee, I cited the fact that I had spoken to a friend who had rescue greyhound dogs, which attracted considerable response. I will let Andrew give you a flavour of the kind of consultation that has been done.
In the past few years, we have considered the evidence that has been supplied to the committee in response to the petition. That has included the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission’s research, the report of which quoted various pieces of research to underline the fact that it is now widely accepted that there is an inherent risk of injury associated with greyhounds running around bends. There are specific patterns of injuries to dogs involving the left foreleg and the right hind leg. Various studies have been done in the United Kingdom and internationally, particularly in Australia and New Zealand, that back that up. There is ample evidence to suggest that there is a particular risk associated with running around bends.
We have also been monitoring the responses to the bill and the call for evidence, and looking at the evidence that has been presented to the Senedd in Wales in evidence sessions and submissions.
We also considered the latest published results from the Greyhound Board of Great Britain, which, as I am sure you know, produces annual reports of injuries and fatalities. In the 2024 season in England and Wales, there were 3,800 injuries, and 123 dogs were put to sleep on humane grounds at the track. The board gives a whole host of detail in its reports. I could give a few examples, such as the number of dogs that were put to sleep on vets’ advice away from the track and deaths of dogs that were designated unsuitable for homing. Those things are laid out in detail in the Greyhound Board of Great Britain reports and have been part of our consideration.
Could you twist your mic up slightly in case people cannot hear you?
To clarify, are you satisfied that you have reached as wide a group of people as you can with the consultation that has been done, either by the Government or by the member in charge of the bill? Going back to the convener’s point about the change in the Government’s position as the bill has developed, are you satisfied that consultation pre and post that change has brought in all the evidence that we need to see?
Yes. I should say that we consulted on our licensing proposal a couple of years ago, so we have considered a wide range of evidence that has now informed our position suitably.
09:45
Okay. So, in your mind, Thornton racetrack’s concern that the only people who had replied were animal activists is not fair, because you think that a broad range of people have responded.
Yes. Clearly, Thornton has had the chance to respond and other voices from the Greyhound Board of Great Britain have responded and have submitted detailed responses to the committee and to the Senedd. Obviously, we have looked at those responses as well. Other pro-racing groups have had the chance to put their views as well.
The committee has taken evidence widely and has brought in people with different arguments. In fact, when I was still a back bencher, I think that I was involved in one of the sessions when the GBGB was here. The process has not been a flick of a switch—a lot of consideration has gone into it.
I want to touch on the different evidence base that has developed since you said that your position was that you were not in favour of banning because that was disproportionate. What has changed? We had the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission’s report at the time when you decided not to support a ban. I think that Andrew Voas said that the only thing that has changed is that we now have the 2024 GBGB report. Is that right?
No. The bit that has changed is Mr Ruskell’s position in the bill, which will now ban racing on oval tracks. That is the primary bit.
No—I am talking about your position on whether oval tracks are dangerous.
My position is that it is oval tracks where the ban will be implemented.
But the only additional evidence on oval tracks, which has made you change your mind since you last appeared in front of the committee, is the 2024 GBGB report. Is that correct?
No. It is the fact that racing is being banned on oval tracks.
I am not talking about that. I need to make myself clear. You are—
I am not sure how to make it any clearer. There has been wide-scale consultation. I sat in the committee, listening to the evidence. When I was made a minister and was given the bill, the Government took a neutral position. At that time, the bill would have banned racing in Scotland across the board. That has subsequently changed to banning it on oval tracks. The oval tracks bit is the specific bit that has allowed the Government to support the principles of the bill.
I do not think that anybody at any point discussed racing on anything other than oval tracks, because at that time any evidence that we had was on oval tracks. The member’s bill specifically mentions oval tracks, but, when you were in front of the committee previously, there was no discussion of potentially racing on straight tracks. It was about the current situation in Thornton. So, minister—
I dispute that. I think that, when I was a back bencher and a member of the committee, I asked whether there would be a problem if there were straight tracks. I think that I recall that the answer at that point—it will be in the Official Report—was yes but that there are no straight tracks in Scotland, although it could be done on straight tracks. That is the specific bit that Mr Ruskell has changed in his bill—it is now about racing on oval tracks.
Right. I need to be clearer on this. At the time, you were not minded to ban racing at Thornton, which was an oval track. You are now minded to ban that. On what basis? What further or changed evidence has come forward on racing on an oval track since you said that it was okay? From what I understand, the evidence that you had at that time from the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission was based on oval tracks. Therefore, the only thing that has changed relating to evidence on oval tracks is the GBGB 2024 report. Is that correct? I am focusing on oval tracks.
Is the timing relevant in relation to that position?
In effect, we have had no more evidence suggesting the inherent risk of racing on an oval track other than the GBGB 2024 report.
No. The only thing that has allowed the Government to come to the position that it has come to is the fact that Mr Ruskell has changed the bill from banning racing in its entirety to banning it on oval tracks.
That does not make sense. When we were talking about banning greyhound racing at Thornton, on an oval track, you did not support that ban, but you are now supporting the ban on oval track racing at Thornton. That position has changed. Are we agreed?
Yes.
What has made you change your position? What evidence has come forward since you decided that the ban should not be in place at Thornton, given that you now think that it should be?
Because the bill, at that time, was talking about banning the racing of greyhounds—
We are not talking about the bill; we are talking about your position on racing on oval tracks. In 2024, you did not suggest that there should be a ban on oval track racing.
It was not my bill to bring forward in 2024 to say that it was on oval track racing. Let me be absolutely clear, convener, because I see where you are trying to go with this. The position of Mr Ruskell’s proposed bill at that point was to ban racing—end of. There was no mention of oval tracks—you are absolutely correct that there was no mention of oval tracks. Mr Ruskell has now changed the bill so that it will ban racing on oval tracks. We can support that, based on the evidence that we have about the inherent risk of animal welfare issues from oval tracks. That is the only thing that has changed.
But you had that evidence in 2024.
But that is not what the bill was asking us to do.
Forget about the bill—
But the bill is the important bit, convener.
Please, minister. It is a simple question—
I have given you a simple answer.
No, you have not answered my question.
I think that I have.
In 2024, you were not minded to ban racing at Thornton. Is that correct?
We were not minded to ban racing in Scotland.
It was in Thornton.
It was not necessarily about Thornton on its own; it was about racing in Scotland. Thornton was the track at that time. I believe that Mr Ruskell has thought about how to ensure that the ban gets support. I apologise if I am putting words into the member’s mouth, but, in the conversations that we have had with him, his concern has always been about the inherent risk on bends. That is where the problem actually lies.
When he proposed his bill to begin with, it was about banning greyhound racing. It did not mention oval tracks, and we were not minded to ban racing across the board. The member has now changed his bill so that it will ban racing on oval tracks. That is where the inherent risk is, which has allowed the Government to say that we can accept and support the bill.
I am sorry, minister, but I am not going to let this lie. You said:
“my understanding of what happens at Thornton is that it is an entirely different beast from what is happening at the highly charged atmospheres of the tracks down south”—
that is, in England, where dogs are seen as “commodities”. You went on to say that, in Scotland,
“dogs are as much part of the family ... as they are for racing.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 22 May 2024; c 5.]
At that point, you did not support a ban at Thornton, which has an oval track. Is that—
We did not support—
Sorry, minister. Is that correct?
We did not support a ban across Scotland.
I am talking specifically about the oval track at Thornton. You did not support the banning of racing on an oval track at Thornton. It is quite clear that that is what the record says. On that basis—
But the bill was not about Thornton.
We are not talking about the bill; I am asking about your opinion on oval track racing.
We are talking about the bill—
Your view on oval track racing—
I am giving evidence on the bill that the member has introduced, so we are absolutely talking about the bill.
No. You are here to answer questions.
I am answering the questions.
No, you are not.
Well, I think that I am.
Your position has changed on oval track racing.
My position has changed on oval track racing—yes.
Right. Okay. That is fine. On what basis has it changed? From what I can see, the only additional evidence on oval track racing since your position was not to ban it is the 2024 GBGB report.
Because Mr Ruskell’s bill—
No, no—let us focus on this. You have changed your position from not wanting to ban oval track racing to wanting to ban it. All that I want to know is what evidence has changed for you to change your mind on that.
What has changed is that Mr Ruskell introduced his bill with—
No, no. Sorry, minister—
I do not know how to make this any clearer. It is about the proportionality of banning racing across Scotland. As the proposed bill stood right at the start, it would have banned racing across Scotland on any track. Mr Ruskell has introduced a bill that will ban racing on oval tracks. I am now convinced that there is enough inherent danger in oval tracks and that enough welfare concerns are raised to say that that should no longer be allowed. I do not know how to make that any clearer.
Minister, I do not think that you are being genuine here. In 2024, you did not think that racing at Thornton should be banned, and that was happening on an oval track. You did not think that it should be banned; you now believe that it should be banned. All that I am asking is, on what evidence? What has changed for you to change your view on banning oval track racing at Thornton?
Because the proportionality of the bill that Mr Ruskell introduced at that time was on racing—
I am sorry, minister, but you are not answering the question.
I think that I am.
The evidence in the GBGB report suggests that the number of injuries has reduced—it is at a record low. If the evidence has made you change your mind, I do not understand that, because there is less evidence of injuries on tracks in 2024 than there was prior to 2024. I hope that it is on the record that you are refusing to answer a simple question. It is disappointing, because all we want to do is find out what evidence has been brought to the Government to make it change its position on banning racing on oval tracks, and we have not been able to do that.
Your position, convener, is that the number of injuries has gone down. It has gone down very marginally, and there has certainly not been any reduction in the number of deaths, based on the GBGB information. That is the GBGB information—
But it has gone down, minister.
It may have gone down marginally, but it is about proportionality, and the oval track is the bit that is causing the issue for the welfare—
So, what has changed your mind since 2024?
Because Mr Ruskell’s bill is now about banning—
Okay—we will move on. I have a question from Alasdair Allan.
I am interested in Thornton specifically. Am I right in thinking that Thornton is not currently operating?
It is not operating race days, as I understand it, at this moment in time.
Is there currently any activity that would be banned as a result of the bill, or is the problem essentially in the past tense?
I am not sure of the last time that they had an official race at Thornton, so I cannot answer that. Andrew Voas may have more information than I do.
No, we are not aware of there having been any racing at Thornton for several months—in fact, for most of this year. There does not seem to be any racing at Thornton.
Could that arguably be said to create a simpler situation in that it would appear that we are now dealing with preventing something from happening in the future rather than stopping something that is currently under way?
Potentially, yes.
In that case, would it be fair to describe this as a situation that has possibly resolved itself, notwithstanding the fact that there may need to be legislation for the future? If it is a problem—which many people out there would consider it to be—has it essentially come to an end?
I do not have the figures in front of me, but I know that there has been less and less interest in greyhound racing in Scotland. It has definitely been a diminishing sport, but one of the issues that Mr Ruskell brought to us was the fact that a GBGB track could open up. Through this legislation, we would be able to have a prohibition on oval tracks, which is the proportionate line to take at this moment in time.
So, the focus in the future would probably be on preventing commercial activity from starting, since it would appear that this type of non-commercial activity is pretty much at an end.
The bill is more about welfare, so I do not think that commerciality is the issue. It is about the inherent risk on those bends, where the collisions are more likely to take place.
Okay. Thank you.
Good morning, and thanks for your answers so far. The bill looks to criminalise both the track owner and the individual who is racing their greyhounds on the racetrack. That is different from Wales, where the Prohibition of Greyhound Racing (Wales) Bill would criminalise only those operating a greyhound racing venue or actively organising greyhound racing. What are your reasons for supporting the criminalisation of both track owners and individuals who are racing their greyhounds, and what do you think the consequences of that difference might be?
10:00
The bill was prepared for Mr Ruskell by the non-Government bills unit, so we did not have any say in the drafting of it. However, we understand that it will need to include a suitable disincentive to avoid there being any unintended loopholes that could exit if the narrow approach of penalising only track owners were taken. As I said, it was Mr Ruskell’s bill, and his team had it drafted in that way.
Do you think that its differences from the Welsh legislation will have any consequences?
Consequences in what sense?
Unintended consequences.
Keith White can respond about whether we think there will be unintended consequences from a legal perspective.
Well, not really. The bill is aimed at protecting the welfare of greyhounds, so I can see why it is an acceptable approach that both of the kinds of people who are responsible for the greyhounds are held responsible for not running them on an oval track and that people are prohibited from setting up oval tracks where greyhounds can be run.
Minister, you said that, because this is a non-Government bill, you did not have the opportunity to feed in to the specifics. Would you potentially be looking to amend this section of the bill at later stages? If so, how?
We will be looking to work with the member in charge to lodge several amendments, potentially to sections 3 to 9 and to the schedule. That is in the early stages of discussion with the member.
What would the policy purpose be?
The policy purpose would be to bring the bill into line with the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, as opposed to the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Act 2023, which the bill has been modelled on. There are various things that we would need to discuss with the member before we lodged those amendments.
The bill creates two offences. The last time you gave evidence on the bill, in its early stages, there was discussion of dogs from Scotland being raced in England. Do you see there being an opportunity in the bill as drafted, or through the amendments that you hope to lodge, to do something about that behaviour if it is—
Do you mean to prevent dogs from going south to race?
To prevent the owners from organising and taking them to a track in England.
All owners are bound by the legislation on transport authorisations when it comes to the moving of animals. I do not anticipate the Government lodging amendments to prohibit the transportation of the animals.
I want to go back to your support for criminalising both the track owners and the individuals who race dogs, which is unlike the approach in the Welsh bill. Why do you support that?
It is to bring home the seriousness of the animal welfare aspects and the fact that it is not in anyone’s interest to break the law. Not just one side or the other would be caught out—both the racer and the racetrack owner could be found to be in breach, so they could both be liable.
I will pick up on the same point. I am interested in the Government’s attitude towards any potential amendments around the issue of criminal penalties. You have said that the penalty should apply to both the racetrack operator and the dog owner. The bill also proposes imprisonment, potentially for up to five years, which is the kind of sentence that somebody would serve for an assault on a person leading to a serious injury. Will the Government give consideration to what the penalty should be?
The penalties that we are looking at will be in line with the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, and that is the maximum penalty available under that act. Rather than have a bespoke system specifically for greyhounds, it will probably be better to tie the penalties in to the 2006 act. That does not mean that it is a given that the maximum penalty will be applied. That is not for the Government to decide; it is for the judiciary and whoever the case is in front of.
Emma Harper has a question about the definition of a racetrack.
I do not want to belabour the oval racetrack issue, but I am looking at evidence on injuries to hocks, wrists, feet, hind long bones, fore long bones, hind limbs and muscles. There has been loads of evidence that thousands of dogs have been injured on oval racetracks.
Minister, I joined the committee when you left it, so I was not part of the previous evidence gathering. However, having worked with Mark Ruskell in the past few years, looking at evidence and listening to what the Dogs Trust, the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and OneKind are saying, I believe that all the evidence points to the fact that oval racetracks cause damage to dogs. I am interested in whether the Scottish Government supports the approach to oval racetracks, which you mentioned in your opening statement. I suppose that we are linking the oval racetrack issue with the evidence that oval racetracks cause injury. Is the evidence that I am looking at defining that? Is that correct?
Yes, it is about the oval shape of the track. There is evidence from the United Kingdom and abroad of the injuries and fatalities that occur on those oval tracks. There are a small number of straight tracks in other countries and there is no evidence of the same degree of risk to justify a ban on straight tracks. If a straight track opened in Scotland, we would keep it under review, but the focus has definitely been on the oval track.
If a straight racetrack were to open and you kept it under review, the flexibility in the proposed legislation would allow the Government to alter its approach, because the proposal covers only oval racetracks.
It would be for the Government of the time to make that decision.
I want to look at the narrowing of the bill’s scope in relation to definitions of racing and wider animal welfare concerns. In discussions on the bill and the previous petition, concerns were raised with the committee about the welfare of greyhounds away from the track—particularly about the fact that there are no specific regulations on kennelling. What is your position on the need for regulations on kennels and on whether there are wider animal welfare issues around the movement of dogs for racing?
We have no plans to introduce specific regulations on other aspects of greyhound racing in Scotland, including the keeping, breeding, kennelling, training and transport of greyhounds. The bill is specifically about racing them. The other activities that you are talking about are already covered by the general provisions of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 and other legislation that applies to all dogs.
The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission’s view is that kennels are not compatible with a good quality of life. Do you agree or disagree with that?
Kennels are—?
They are not compatible with a good quality of life.
I have stated previously that I do not entirely agree with that, because I know an awful lot of kennel dogs that live very good-quality lives.
And you do not accept the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission’s position on that basis.
I have made it clear that I am not entirely convinced that the quality of life of a kennel dog is any less than that of a dog that lives in a home.
What about the suggestion that, if we ban greyhound racing in Scotland, that will not have an impact on GBGB tracks that are licensed south of the border? Do you believe that the bill could provide the opportunity to improve the lives of greyhounds that are kennelled in Scotland but race in England? If that is the case—
Sorry—could you repeat that, convener?
At the moment, the bill will not stop greyhounds being kennelled in Scotland and raced in England. Is there not a concern that the bill should also cover kennelling, so that the dogs that continue to be raced south of the border have a good quality of life?
If that is the scope of the bill that Mr Ruskell has introduced, that is entirely up to him.
Okay. Thank you. We will move on to questions on enforcement provisions, from Ariane Burgess.
Good morning, minister. The bill makes provision for enforcement, deprivation orders, disqualification orders and seizure orders in relation to greyhounds. The Scottish Government’s memorandum on the bill sets out that the Government will seek to make some amendments to those provisions. I would be interested to understand why you consider that amendments to those provisions are needed.
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.
So, it is primarily about the streamlining of those processes. Do you have a sense of who would be responsible for enforcing the legislation? For example, would local authorities have a role?
Under the bill as introduced, it is the responsibility of Police Scotland only. Scottish local authorities could potentially be added as enforcers, subject to their agreement. I think that I am right in saying that Mr Ruskell is currently talking to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities about the potential to do that. It would broaden the scope if other bodies were to have an enforcement role.
Thank you.
Ariane, would you like to cover responsibility for enforcement?
I just asked that question.
You are happy with that.
Yes.
We will move to questions on implementation, transition and review, from Rhoda Grant.
We have heard that there is little or no racing happening at Thornton at the moment, but has the Scottish Government had any dealings with Thornton representatives about whether there is a need for transitional arrangements, given that a business would be closed down as part of this? Staff might be employed there. What transitional arrangements can the Scottish Government put in place?
We are not anticipating that a large number of additional greyhounds will need to be rehomed in Scotland as a consequence of the bill.
Sorry—I am not talking about the greyhounds; I am talking about the business at Thornton and the staff who might be employed there.
Oh, sorry—I misheard what you said. Could you repeat the question?
I am wondering whether you have had discussions with Thornton about transitional arrangements, given—
About the site?
About the site, the employees and the business.
No, we have not.
Do you anticipate having discussions to see what support might be needed?
I am not averse to doing that. I am more than happy to have those discussions with the owner of Thornton racetrack.
You also said in your opening remarks that Thornton is very much a social racetrack rather than one where a lot of money changes hands. We all know that older men have difficulty in finding social outlets. The men’s sheds are one such outlet, but there are very few others. Given that there could be isolation and a lack of social activity for the people who normally go to Thornton, have you had any discussions with those people or with organisations that might represent them about what could be put in place to ensure that they do not become isolated?
10:15
I absolutely take your point on board. It goes back to one of the things that I talked about before, which is the social value of the activity. However, that cannot get in the way of the welfare scenarios that are in the scope of the bill. To answer your question, no, I have not spoken to anyone about the transition points that you raised. I am more than happy to have those discussions with such organisations, because I take your point on board—I take it very seriously.
It would be useful if, when you do that, you could drop us a line to let us know the outcome of those discussions.
I would be happy to.
Again, it seems a bit strange that the Government has backed the bill but has not looked at the implications for the one track that exists. It would not have taken much to contact Thornton and ask what the impact on its business—and the wider impact—would be.
In the previous evidence session that you attended, you said that you are
“making a distinction”
and that
“it would be disproportionate to ban what is a pastime for the vast majority of people who do it in Scotland, as opposed to the professionalism of what is happening down south.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 22 May 2024; c 7.]
However, you have supported this bill without looking at the impacts that you so clearly touched on the previous time that you were in front of the committee.
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.
Retired greyhounds make great pets when they are rehomed. It looks as though we have lots of dogs that need to be rehomed in Scotland, even though racing is not happening in Scotland. I am looking at some of the data on charities that are sometimes burdened because of dogs having injuries that need to be dealt with before they can be rehomed. Is the Government working with some of those charities to look at the number of animals that need surgery or other treatment before they are rehomed? Is such data being gathered? I am looking at Andrew Voas as well.
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.
On the back of Emma Harper’s question, do you have any idea of how many greyhounds in Scotland will be affected by the bill?
We do not have specific numbers, but we are not anticipating huge numbers of dogs being rehomed as a result of the bill. Having had a conversation with Mr Ruskell, I understand that the SSPCA and another organisation, whose name has gone out of my head at the moment, have accepted that they will have the capacity to do any rehoming that is needed.
My question goes beyond rehoming. This is a piece of legislation that is going through the Parliament. Given that your views are now based on animal welfare, how many greyhounds in Scotland will be affected by the ban?
By not racing? I do not have specific numbers to say how many dogs are racing.
You are supporting a member’s bill, but you do not know whether it is going to be of significant benefit to greyhounds in Scotland.
I know that dogs that are raced on an oval track have an inherent risk of injury. I do not have a specific number for how many dogs the bill will affect or how many dogs are being raced in Scotland. Andrew, do you have a specific number?
Well—
Again, minister, you have made a decision to support the bill but you do not know whether the numbers of dogs that it will affect is proportionate to a piece of legislation.
I have told you the answer. I do not have a specific number. Andrew Voas might, but that was not the point. It was not about numbers of dogs but about the inherent risk of racing on an oval track.
As far as we know, no dogs are racing in Scotland at the moment, because Thornton has not operated for several months. If dogs are taken from Scotland to race, maybe in the north of England, the bill will not interfere with them carrying on doing that.
As you know, the number of racing dogs has declined naturally for several years, as Thornton has declined because of falling attendances and difficulty in arranging for the bookmaker to attend. The activity at Thornton has declined over several years and, as far as we know, no dogs are actively racing in Scotland, because the only track has been closed for most of the year.
So, currently, the bill will not improve the animal welfare of any dogs in Scotland.
Unless they start racing.
Good morning. I guess that this question could come under the unintended consequences heading. In its written evidence, GBGB stated that,
“were a ban on greyhound racing to be introduced, there is a very real risk that the activity would be driven underground.”
It then stated that that would pose a greater risk to welfare. Has the Scottish Government considered that risk and whether any underground activity would be a likely or realistic consequence of the bill?
I had that thought and I asked the question. There was no evidence of underground greyhound racing in Scotland in response to the closure of Shawfield previously. We understand that the intention of the bill is that it will remain legal to take greyhounds to race in England. Therefore, if people want to race their dogs, they still have the option to do it down south. At this moment in time, we do not have any evidence of the potential for underground racing.
So, you do not see it as being a possibility.
Anything is a possibility. However, at this moment in time, there is no evidence that anything is happening in that space.
We know that there tends to be displacement when breed-specific restrictions, regulations or legislations are brought in, and different breeds start to become involved in whatever the regulation was looking to prevent. Is there concern that different breeds might be subject to the kind of dangerous racing that greyhounds are put through, which we have been discussing, and that the same welfare risk would apply to those breeds?
Do you mean whippet racing, for example, as opposed to greyhound racing?
Sure.
Well, it comes down to the same response and to whether dogs are racing on an oval track. Again, we do not have any specific evidence at the moment, but if you are going to be racing a whippet, it is likely to be less of a high-intensity, commercially-driven sport than the way in which greyhound racing is done in other parts of the country.
Is the Scottish Government planning to keep, or willing to consider keeping, under review the matter of whether other breeds are now at risk should the bill pass?
I would imagine that any Government will constantly keep these things under review, and I am sure that members such as Mr Ruskell will be quick to highlight problems if they anticipate them.
The Government’s position has changed from being potentially pro-licence to being pro-ban. Was there not more scope to have a broader impact on the welfare of greyhounds with licensing rather than with what the bill will deliver—which, from what you have just told us, will not impact any greyhounds? The Government had it in its powers to introduce licensing, which could have been more encompassing and had a bigger impact by looking at things such as kennelling and dog transport. Your position has changed from licensing to a ban. What has changed since the last evidence session, in 2024, that has made you side with a ban rather than licensing?
Licensing is still an opportunity if somebody brings forward a straight track, for instance. The bill’s specific purpose, which we support, relates to the oval track. If somebody wants to open up a straight track, licensing has the potential to be taken forward.
I want to pick up on that point. Does that mean that you do not see any potential in licensing for an oval track instead of an outright ban? I think that the matter came before the committee in May 2024, which was prior to my time on the committee, but it is my understanding that, when we considered the petition, it was reported that there was no need for a ban, and your initial position was that there was no need for a ban. You do not see that there is a potential benefit here—that, rather than going down this route, we could use licensing both for an oval track and for any future straight track.
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.
Okay, but I just want to confirm this, and it goes back to the convener’s earlier question. The change in the Government’s position from 2024 to 2025 concerned only the change from implementing an outright ban to banning racing only on oval tracks.
Yes.
And that is despite the fact that the original discussions were all about Thornton track, which was an oval track at the time.
It was not about that; it was about banning greyhound racing in Scotland across the board.
Okay.
Turning to a wider question, we have a member’s bill before us; we are looking at another member’s bill, the Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill, later in the meeting; and we have had Christine Grahame’s bill on dog breeding. When is the Scottish Government going to take a holistic approach to the welfare of dogs? Does it have any plans to produce legislation and pull it together? It seems that there is something missing, and it is members who are filling the gaps.
I am not sure that that is the case. I think that the Government takes a very strong view on animal welfare issues across the board. If members have specific areas of concern that they want to raise, the beauty of our Parliament is that members are free to do so.
It is very fragmented.
That is potentially a fair statement, but that is the way that the provisions currently are. We have members who are very capable of producing bills to be debated by the Parliament and then decided on, one way or the other.
Rhoda Grant makes a fair point. Do you think that there is a responsibility on the Government here? Governments are held to higher account. Is there a responsibility on the Government, noting that multiple members’ bills are being introduced that are all pooling the same thought? Does the Government need to step in and, rather than accept and back those various bills, look at the bigger picture more holistically?
Not at this moment in time, no.
Consolidation legislation was talked about when I was pursuing my livestock-worrying bill, the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. My goal at the time was to update the 70-year-old legislation in the UK, as alpacas and llamas are now livestock, which was not the case under the original legislation. Consolidation legislation is an option. However, it is resource intensive to pull all the legislation together. Although it is an option, producing such a bill is very resource intensive and time intensive. Is that what consolidation legislation would involve?
I can comment on that just from experience of the level of engagement that is required for a specific bill. If we were to consolidate all the relevant bills, then, yes.
I am sure that Keith White would be able to give a more fundamental answer than I can on the work and resource that would be involved, but I know from the individual bits of legislation that I take forward that the process is incredibly intense. I therefore imagine that, if you were to consolidate all of it, that would be the same.
The Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 was intended to be a consolidation of a lot of animal welfare legislation, applying the same rules across the board to the protection of animals. Naturally, there are specific welfare issues that come up and that deserve a particular approach. Yes—consolidation involves a great deal of policy work and legal work. With the particular nature of animal welfare, individual concerns arise where people feel that a particular solution is needed.
In the case of Maurice Golden’s Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill, it became very clear for a period that dogs were being stolen because they were of enormous value, but that was perhaps not the case for the bill that was enacted in 2006. As things evolve and situations arise, members feel compelled to bring proposals forward, I would presume.
10:30
I do not know whether this is a fair question, but people will be watching this, and we have mentioned the other bills. For absolute clarity, I am conscious that amendments have been lodged to Maurice Golden’s bill that will open up its scope to include working dogs and so on. We are talking about greyhounds here, but dogs are used in a multitude of different disciplines in Scotland. At present, the Government is not looking at doing anything else with sheepdogs, working dogs, retrieval dogs for field sports or anything like that. Is this bill, including at stage 2, for you purely about greyhounds in Scotland?
Yes.
Before we move on to Mark Ruskell, I have another question. I want to get a feel for how the bill will go as far as it needs to go to improve animal welfare. Do you have an indication of how many greyhound dogs are raced on GBGB tracks south of the border but are kennelled in Scotland?
I think that there are some numbers on record. As I recall, there are around 20 trainers in Scotland.
We can write to the committee with as accurate a figure as we have.
Again, that is quite important, because the Government has taken the position that it will support the bill rather than introduce its own legislation, but it does not address one of the key issues that has been raised throughout this parliamentary session on the overall welfare of greyhounds in Scotland, whether they are raced in Scotland or not. The vast majority of greyhounds that are injured in Scotland are being raced in England. I would have thought that you would have known how many greyhounds are kennelled in Scotland to be raced in England.
We will have figures, but, as I said, I do not have them to hand. We can write to the committee with those figures. This is as much an evidence session for the Government as it is for everybody else. Is the committee’s position that there should be a ban on allowing dogs to travel south of the border? I am more than happy to hear what the committee’s positions are on such things.
The reason why we have you in front of us is to work out why the Government supports the bill and on what basis you support it. You have made the decision, and the idea of the evidence session is for us to understand why you have taken that decision. You have the capacity and the resources to look into it in great detail and form an opinion, and you have done that, but it appears that there are gaps in the information and we will have to write to you to get the data. I am surprised that the Government has come to a position but is not able to provide some of the information that the decision was ultimately made on.
The bill is about Scotland, not England.
It has been a very interesting evidence session. I have a couple of questions for you and your team. First, you alluded to a letter that was sent to you from the Dogs Trust, Blue Cross, the SSPCA and the Scottish Greyhound Sanctuary. In that letter, they make a commitment to rehome any dogs as a consequence of the bill. It mentions that between 40 and 60 dogs may require to be rehomed. Does that give you confidence that the bill, should it go to a stage 3 vote and be passed, could be implemented sooner rather than later, and certainly within the 12-month implementation date in the bill?
We are due to discuss the implementation date. That is one of the discussions on the implications of all the evidence that we will have. That letter will be fully analysed and discussed with officials, and we will take that forward from there to discuss it with you.
Is ensuring that dogs can be rehomed your primary concern?
It is one of our concerns.
Thanks for that. I will turn to an issue that a number of committee members have raised this morning, which is the matters that are not covered by the bill, such as the situation that can arise when GBGB trainers are taking dogs to race at tracks in England. The current regulations for that fall under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Minister, you mentioned the regulations relating to the transport of animals for commercial purposes, and you mentioned kennelling. That area of wider animal welfare relates to greyhounds but also to dogs and other animals. Is the Government reviewing that area, has it reviewed it, or is it in the process of reviewing it?
I would be interested in hearing Andrew Voas’s views on what work the Government has been doing to review those provisions, because they do affect greyhounds. I am thinking particularly about transport, because I know that there have been concerns that some trainers have not gone through the proper regulatory process of applying for transport licences. Has the Scottish Government reviewed that recently, or is it doing so?
As you know, we consulted fairly recently on the potential licensing of various animal-related activities, including dog walking and dog grooming, and kennelling might also come into that area. We are currently taking forward work to look at the licensing of canine facility services, because we think that that is the highest priority due to the potential harm to animals in Scotland. That is where my welfare team is concentrating its resources at the moment.
On the issue of transport, there is legislation based on European Union requirements for the commercial movement of dogs, including greyhounds. We are not actively reviewing that at the moment, but we will monitor any future developments at EU or UK level regarding the review of transport legislation that affects dogs. We are keeping an eye on that area, but we do not have any active plans in Scotland at the moment.
It is my understanding that a Welsh bill that is broadly similar to this one is going through the Senedd at the moment and that the Welsh Government has made a commitment that, as well as making it an offence to race a greyhound in Wales, it will look at the wider issue of dogs being transported over the Welsh border. Is that something that you could consider before the stage 1 debate on this bill? What commitment could the Government make to look at the wider issue of transportation licences? That issue has been raised with me, particularly in connection with enforcement and with whether the regulations are working effectively.
Authorisation is already required for anyone who transports animals. There are type 1 and type 2 authorisations, and those who transport greyhounds are responsible for ensuring that they comply with the regulations that are currently in place. That is our position at the moment.
Okay.
Keith, if the bill were to ban someone who lives in Scotland from racing a dog in England, would that be legal and proportionate? Is it difficult to ban someone who is resident in Scotland from doing something in another jurisdiction?
I have not considered that, because that is not the intention of the bill at the moment and it is not the basis on which the Government has been supporting the bill.
My final question is about the issue of other forms of track, such as straight tracks, that do not exist in the UK at the moment. Minister, there is a provision in the bill for future ministers to consider and change the definition of a track should evidence emerge of other forms of greyhound racing, because of the risk of harm that could result from that. Do you welcome that? There has been some discussion today of straight tracks, which do not exist in this country, so there is no evidence base for them, but do you welcome the provision in the bill to keep the definition under review and amendable through secondary legislation?
The definition of a track is in the bill and we are supporting the bill at this stage.
There is a wider provision enabling ministers to review that definition if there is evidence of some form of underground racing that no one has yet invented.
Yes.
Okay. That is all from me for now.
Thank you, Mr Ruskell. That brings us to the end of this part of the meeting, and I thank the minister and his officials for attending.
I am going to suspend the meeting until 10.45. However, given that we are running ahead of time, I propose that we then move into private session for 15 minutes, until 11 o’clock, before moving on to our consideration of the Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill at stage 2.
10:39 Meeting suspended until 10:45 and continued in private thereafter until 11:06.