Official Report 946KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-20527, in the name of Mark Ruskell, on the Greyhound Racing (Offences) (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. I call Mark Ruskell, the member in charge of the bill, to speak to and move the motion.
15:55
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 congratulate Mark Ruskell on getting his bill this far. However, I am here to speak on behalf of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee and to set out the findings of our stage 1 scrutiny of the Greyhound Racing (Offences) (Scotland) Bill.
In commencing its stage 1 scrutiny, the committee ran a targeted call for views between August and October 2025, which was followed by evidence sessions with the minister and the member in charge of the bill. On behalf of the committee, I thank everyone who has contributed to our scrutiny of the issue.
The committee has considered the issue over an extended period, having previously held a short inquiry into petition PE1758, which urges the Scottish Government to end greyhound racing in Scotland. We agreed to pause consideration of the petition when the bill was introduced in order to let the bill complete its passage through Parliament.
The committee as a whole supports the general principles of the bill. However, not all committee members are persuaded that the evidence gathered to date justifies a ban. Tim Eagle, Rhoda Grant, Beatrice Wishart and I take the view that a sufficiently robust case has not so far been made.
Before I speak directly to the bill’s provisions, I want to lay out how the committee’s scrutiny has highlighted important questions, which we look forward to discussing in the debate. At the time of our petition inquiry, the Scottish Government’s view was that, although statistics relating to injuries at tracks that were regulated by the Greyhound Board of Great Britain were “unacceptable”, there was insufficient evidence that the welfare risks at independent tracks are comparable to those at GBGB tracks.
For those who do not follow greyhound racing in detail, there is one track in Scotland—the independent track at Thornton in Fife. In our report on the petition, we asked the Scottish Government how it intended to gather data from that independent track. Although there has been no new data since our petition report, the Scottish Government supports the bill. The minister told the committee that he believed that there are inherent welfare risks associated with greyhound racing at speeds on oval tracks—risks that, in his view, cannot be fully eliminated through regulation or good practice.
The member makes the point that, without data, we do not know what the situation is for an unregulated track. Would the assumption not be that it will be worse than at a track that is regulated?
Throughout our evidence sessions on the bill and the petition, we heard no evidence of dog injuries or reports to the Scottish SPCA to suggest that there was any cruelty. We were just dealing with the data that was put in front of us. We were not making assumptions—it is simply that such evidence was not available.
Does the member agree that, given that there is evidence of cruelty, animal fatalities and injuries on licensed tracks, it would therefore follow that there would also be such things on an unlicensed track?
We are dealing with tracks in Scotland and with banning track greyhound racing in Scotland, and we have to be careful about using the term “cruelty”. The issues were about dogs that were injured. We have to be very careful about our language and using words such as “cruelty”.
The minister told the committee that he believes that there are inherent welfare risks associated with greyhound racing at speeds and with oval tracks, and, in his view, those risks cannot be eliminated through regulation or good practice. In the light of the committee members’ differing views on the case for a ban, the committee asked the Scottish Government for a fuller explanation of why it now considers welfare risks to be comparable between independent and GBGB-regulated tracks.
I thank the minister for his letter to the committee, which responded to that request ahead of this afternoon’s debate. Although no new data has been provided, I acknowledge the Scottish Government’s position that its move to support the bill is based on previous evidence that demonstrates the inherent risk of racing on oval-shaped tracks, including the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission’s 2023 report.
The committee notes that the bill would not prevent greyhounds that are kept in Scotland from racing elsewhere in the UK, and notes the minister’s recent correspondence, which states:
“It is unfortunate that greyhounds kennelled in Scotland which are raced in other parts of the UK will have a different level of protection afforded to them”.
Although the immediate impact of the bill would be very limited, given that greyhound racing is not currently taking place in Scotland, it would still prevent racing from recommencing at the Thornton track and would prevent the establishment of any new oval tracks in Scotland.
On the bill’s provisions, should a ban be introduced, we agree with the bill’s approach of making it an offence to allow a dog to race both for the greyhound’s owner and for the track operator.
Statistics show that the highest welfare risks are associated with oval tracks. Therefore, the committee also agrees that, if a ban is introduced, it should apply specifically to oval tracks. We are content with the penalty provision in sections 1 and 2, as drafted, and note the Scottish Government’s intention to amend the provisions in sections 3 to 9, on enforcement, to ensure that they are consistent with existing animal welfare legislation.
I look forward to hearing colleagues’ views on the bill during the debate.
16:07
I begin by recognising the vitally important role that all dogs play in our communities, and their contribution to society. One of the biggest losses that I have had since becoming an MSP is the fact that I no longer have a dog that I can spend hours having endless fun with. It is important to recognise that we want to have the best relationship with our dogs that we can, and that welfare is a vital part of that.
I remind the Parliament that, when the bill was first proposed, the Government took a neutral stance. 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.
As the Parliament will be aware, the Scottish Government is also considering the feasibility of introducing statutory licensing for greyhound racing and whether that would drive the animal welfare improvements that we all want to see. The bill that is now before the Scottish Parliament is far more focused in scope, and it seeks specifically to prohibit the racing of greyhounds on oval tracks.
Currently, the Welsh Government is proposing a complete ban on greyhound racing in Wales. At this point, we believe that there is sufficient evidence to prohibit greyhound racing on oval tracks, but not on all tracks.
The Scottish Government is committed to setting the highest standards of animal welfare, and we believe that the stated aim of the bill is to address the inherent risks that are associated with running dogs at speed on oval tracks. Those are risks that, even with good practice, cannot be eliminated entirely, and risks that licensing would not be able to eliminate. Having carefully considered that evidence, the Scottish Government has agreed to support the general principles of the bill, recognising that it represents a proportionate response to those risks.
I am confused that the minister’s position changed when it was quite clear that there was no type of racing of greyhounds in Scotland other than on an oval track. When the petition was being heard, the minister was quite content to allow that to continue.
We have rehearsed this on numerous occasions and went round the same question numerous times when I give evidence to the committee. We were looking at the broad principle of the bill as it was previously presented, not the one that we have before us.
Let us be clear: there are studies and veterinary reports that have found that, when dogs run into bends at high speed, they experience strong sideways forces that make them more likely to lose balance, collide with each other or hit the track barriers. An Australian report calculated that
“Approximately 80% of all Catastrophic and Major injuries were caused by congestion and incidents such as checking, collision, galloping”.
I provided a link to that report in my response to the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee’s stage 1 report.
The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission’s 2022 report on the welfare of greyhounds in racing concluded that oval track design is a key factor in injuries and deaths due to the combination of bends and the speeds at which racing dogs enter those bends, and that those risks cannot be fully mitigated. Similar concerns are echoed by animal welfare organisations and veterinary reviews, which point to thousands of recorded injuries and numerous fatalities internationally each year that are linked to the racing conditions.
Taken together, that evidence provides a solid animal welfare basis for demonstrating that greyhound racing as practised on oval tracks exposes dogs to a significant risk that cannot be eliminated by other measures.
As I already highlighted to the committee and to Mr Ruskell, we will seek some amendments to the bill and I very much look forward to working with Mr Ruskell on those amendments in the coming weeks. However, although we support the principles of the bill, we are mindful of the implications for the individuals and communities that are connected with greyhound racing in Scotland, particularly those that are involved in 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, it has been less about serious competition and more about companionship. It is a chance to meet friends and others with a shared interest, socialise and give their dogs a run on the track. I put it on record that I absolutely understand their disappointment. I do not doubt for a moment their dedication and their love for their dogs but, of course, I recognise that the bill will not prevent greyhound owners from meeting and socialising with others to exercise their dogs. They will commit an offence only if the dog is run on an oval track. Nonetheless, we must be cognisant of the social and community aspects and the bill’s impact on those people.
I commend Mark Ruskell for his commitment to bringing the welfare of greyhounds to the Parliament’s attention. He has been a staunch advocate for them and has identified and highlighted an inherent risk in racing on oval tracks.
I also thank the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee for its detailed scrutiny of the bill’s proposals and the preparation of its stage 1 report, which made some helpful recommendations.
We recognise that the bill addresses legitimate welfare concerns that, given the current minimal activity at Thornton, will affect only a small number of individuals and animals while preventing oval tracks from being set up for racing elsewhere in Scotland. I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate and to working closely with Mark Ruskell and the committee as the bill progresses.
16:13
I recognise the work that Mark Ruskell MSP has put into the bill and I am genuinely grateful for the discussions that we have had on the issue in recent months. Although I have not been through the member’s bill process myself, I understand that it can be demanding.
There is no doubt that the welfare of animals matters deeply to all of us and that the intention behind the bill—to protect greyhounds from harm—comes from genuine concern. However, I have to be honest that I struggle to believe that it is a priority for the Parliament, given the important issues that the people of Scotland look for us to act on.
As the stage 1 report from the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee made clear, not all members are convinced that a ban is justified now. Although I note that the committee narrowly supported the general principles of the bill, there were concerns that there was insufficient new evidence to firmly establish the need for a ban.
A question also remains for me about proportionality. No licensed greyhound racing is taking place in Scotland, with the last fully licensed track having closed several years ago. That raises a fundamental question: are we legislating to end an activity that already no longer exists and, if so, is a blanket prohibition the best or most proportionate way to address welfare concerns?
I also place on record a concern about how we have arrived at this point. My understanding is that, during earlier consideration of the issue, the Scottish Government was clear that a ban was not necessary and pointed instead towards regulation and licensing—I am conscious that Jim Fairlie just touched on that—but, during the progress of the bill, that position has changed.
It is important for me that legislation of this nature should be driven by clear reasoning and transparency. A properly designed licensing and regulatory framework, which I understand the Government already has powers to introduce, could have gone further in safeguarding the welfare of greyhounds throughout their lives, whether they race in Scotland or elsewhere.
There are existing animal welfare protections in Scottish law, most notably the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, which already makes it an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to a protected animal and gives ministers powers to set codes of practice and licensing for animal-related activities. Some stakeholders argued that strengthening regulation, licensing and oversight could better protect greyhounds throughout their life cycle, rather than an outright ban that might drive activities underground or simply displace concerns across borders.
Animal welfare remains an important priority for me and the Scottish Conservatives. Although I see the motivation behind the bill, because of what I have set out, I am afraid that we cannot support it at stage 1.
Rhoda Grant joins us remotely.
16:15
I, too, congratulate Mark Ruskell on taking a member’s bill to this stage. This is the fourth member’s bill that we have had in this Parliament regarding the welfare of dogs, but there has been no action whatsoever by Government.
I will not vote for the general principles of the bill, because there are no greyhound racetracks in operation in Scotland at the moment. At best, the bill might prevent one from opening, but to open a track you need planning permission, which is not a simple process. Indeed, it is difficult to see how that could happen in the current climate. The Scottish Government proposed a licensing scheme for greyhound racing, but pulled back on that, as was mentioned earlier. Putting that aside, I do not need to tell members about the time pressure in this Parliament after the experience of this week. Unfortunately, that is going to be the norm over the next eight weeks.
Essential legislation that we need to pass is coming forward—legislation that will make a huge difference to people’s lives. I am not convinced that we have the luxury to spend time on legislation that will have little or no effect when we risk losing impactful legislation because of it.
The bill does not deal with animal welfare issues, so greyhounds will still be bred, trained and housed in Scotland, albeit that they will continue to be raced in England. We need the Scottish Government to introduce legislation to deal with the welfare of dogs, be they greyhounds or other breeds. We have puppy farms and illegally imported dogs, all held in terrible conditions. No dog should be mistreated, and the Government needs to act. It is simply not good enough to keep having random members’ bills that, although well meaning, do very little to tackle the welfare of dogs.
The bill bans only oval racetracks, which will leave a loophole, and, although straight tracks are seen as much safer, that ban could lead to figure-of-eight tracks being developed, which I assume would be more dangerous.
I do not think that many of us in the chamber would disagree that we need action on things such as puppy farms, illegal breeding and all the things that Rhoda Grant listed. None of those things means that the bill should not go through. I am confused about her logic there. Why can we not do one thing that is positive for animal welfare while keeping up the pressure to do other things that are positive for animal welfare, too?
To be fair, all that the bill does is put on pressure. There are no greyhounds being raced in Scotland at the moment, and should the bill pass, that situation will be exactly the same. It does not take into account the welfare of greyhounds that are raced elsewhere. It seems to me that it is just sending a signal, which is a luxury that we cannot afford when there is so much time pressure on the Parliament.
I said that the bill bans only oval greyhound racetracks; it does not ban straight ones, which committee evidence suggested were safer. There is nothing to prevent anyone from opening, say, a figure-of-eight track, which, given the sharper bends, would surely be more dangerous.
There are powers in the bill to allow ministers to change the definitions by subordinate legislation, but that would cause a delay, so I am concerned about that as well.
That being said, Scottish Labour is committed to improving the welfare of dogs. We need to deal with the complex issues that surround the breeding, selling, theft and mistreatment of all dogs. We will therefore abstain on the bill at stage 1. Should it progress—should it have time to progress in this session—we will work hard to improve it. [Interruption.]
Thank you. I think that Ms Harper wanted to intervene, but Ms Grant has concluded her speech.
16:20
I am proud to speak in this debate in whole-hearted and enthusiastic support of Mark Ruskell’s Greyhound Racing (Offences) (Scotland) Bill. I pay tribute to Mark for his tireless, compassionate and principled leadership on the issue. For years, he—as well as his beloved Bert—has stood alongside campaigners, charities and members of the public, all of whom have asked a simple question: why does a modern Scotland still permit the suffering of animals for entertainment?
The bill gives us a clear and humane answer. At its heart, this debate is not really about regulation or licensing schemes; it is about values. It is about whether we accept the torture, injury and premature death of gentle dogs as an acceptable price for gambling and spectacle—for what some might call fun and entertainment. I do not accept that, and I know that many members across the chamber do not accept it, either. Greyhounds are not disposable commodities; they are sensitive social animals that feel pain, fear and distress just as profoundly as any dog that shares our homes, yet the evidence is overwhelming that racing them at speed around oval tracks exposes them to inherent and unavoidable risks of serious injury and death. Broken legs, spinal injuries, head trauma and lifelong pain are not rare accidents.
Will the member take an intervention?
Perhaps Finlay Carson, in his intervention, will explain why none of that is cruel.
We are at risk of getting into an argument about who supports animal welfare and who does not. I firmly support animal welfare and I love my dogs as much as anybody else loves theirs, but we are legislators and we are here to legislate. There are currently no dogs that would benefit from the bill. The pressure should be on the Government to bring forward licensing and proper legislation that will protect dogs, whether they are raised in Scotland or in England. The bill would not do that.
If Finlay Carson cares about animal welfare as he says he does, maybe he should care about future proofing our legislation as well. The bill may not do everything that we might want it to do, but that does not mean that this step is not an important one.
Broken legs, spinal injuries, head trauma and lifelong pain are not rare accidents but are predictable outcomes of an industry that is built on speed, strain and profit, and no amount of tweaking can change that fundamental reality. As the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission has made clear, regulation cannot remove the inherent harms of greyhound racing. I say to Mr Carson that the only way to protect these dogs is to end the practice entirely.
I recognise the phenomenal work of the organisations that have brought us to this point. Scotland Against Greyhound Exploitation, OneKind, the Dogs Trust, Blue Cross, the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and so many others have worked with compassion, rigour and determination to expose the realities of greyhound racing and advocate for a kinder alternative and a ban. Their briefings for this afternoon’s stage 1 debate do not deal in abstractions; they tell the stories of individual dogs who have been left injured and traumatised or discarded. Sometimes, if those dogs are lucky, they are patiently rehabilitated by charities when the industry could no longer profit from them. Those organisations understand something fundamental: that our responsibility to animals does not end when they stop being useful to us.
Public support for the bill is strong and consistent across Scotland. People know that the practice belongs in the past. Other nations are moving on, and Scotland, with its proud history of animal welfare leadership, must not be left behind. This is a modest bill with a profound moral purpose. It seeks to prevent future suffering and draw a clear line against cruelty, and it says that, in Scotland, compassion matters more than profit.
I urge colleagues across all parties to support Mark Ruskell’s bill at stage 1 this afternoon and to stand on the right side of history and the side of humanity.
We move to the open debate.
16:25
I whole-heartedly congratulate Mark Ruskell, because I know how tough it is to bring forward a member’s bill. You have to be resilient, negotiate and stay the course—which is not meant to be a pun. I have done it myself, having had two successful members’ bills and one that failed.
I say to Rhoda Grant, who thinks that members’ bills can be random, that my Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 brought in the ideas of the deed, not the breed, and blaming the person, not the animal and was pioneering. My Welfare of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2025 included the idea of bringing in a code for what happens before people get a dog and tried to cut demand, because the supply of dogs is coming from puppy farms and we cannot make laws to deal with matters outwith our jurisdiction.
I say to Tim Eagle and to anyone else that, unless there is a change to the standing orders, every member of Parliament is entitled to bring forward two members’ bills per session. I do not see why the Government, whoever that is, should have its own way on legislation all the time. It is far better to keep Parliament democratic.
I will make another point in my short contribution.
Will Christine Grahame take an intervention?
I have only two minutes.
If you look at it, the bill is not about an outright ban but about a ban on oval tracks, because that is where the damage is done. I do not have the statistics in front of me, but I say to Finlay Carson that the cross-party group had the Greyhound Board of Great Britain in front of us and that we saw those stats. Animals get injured. When they are no use any more, they are sometimes dumped at the side of a road or motorway so that someone will kill them. I have seen that myself in Midlothian. Some dogs get their ears cut so that they cannot be traced back to an owner. There can be unscrupulous and nefarious goings-on when a dog is past its sell-by date—imagine talking about an animal as if it is a thing to be sold.
The amending stage of the bill is still to come, but I notice that the bill says
“Scottish Ministers may by regulations modify the definition of ‘racetrack’”
which would be done by the affirmative procedure, as it should be.
Mark Ruskell is absolutely right: welfare is at the heart of this bill, which deals with only certain racetracks. The track record—I am sorry to make that pun—of injuries, abandonment and death is terrible, and we have all heard about that stuff.
I end my submission by saying that I support member’s bills. I do not want to see them undermined or attacked, and I hope that we will continue having them.
16:27
My concern is that the bill will have minimal benefits—if any—for animal welfare and that Parliament risks wasting time banning something that does not happen anyway, which does not sit well with me.
The bill would also have a detrimental impact on certain constituent groups, namely elderly gentlemen who like a wee bet on the dogs or the horses. It is a recreational activity from former mining areas, where people couldnae afford a horse but could afford greyhounds and used to run them. That is how this kind of thing started. Will horse racing, or even pigeon racing—which some people still do—be next? The fact is that greyhound racing is legal in the rest of the UK, so any market demand would simply shift over there. It does not happen here anyway.
I understand the member’s points and the strong views on the subject, but the committee looked at that. Neither the committee nor the Parliament can be expected to legislate for what happens in England.
Greyhounds have been selectively bred for thousands of years, since the time of the Egyptians, and losing their place culturally will accelerate the extinction of the breed. Due to their huge feeding and exercise demands, greyhounds are not a natural wee pet. They are not easy household pets. I am sure that their owners love them dearly, and I know that they have very good temperaments, because I have friends who have greyhounds.
As with other issues, the urge for members to jump on the ban button is too great, but, if there are concerns about the animal welfare in greyhound racing, surely the solution is to improve the standards and monitoring. If Mr Ruskell wants to look at animal safety and welfare, perhaps he should look at the venture capital acquisitions of veterinary surgeries, which are having far wider impacts on owners of potentially all domestic pets, as well as on farmers, by putting costs through the roof in relation to the welfare of pets and animals and treatment for any illnesses that they have.
With regard to whether this is a reserved matter, some areas are reserved and some are devolved. Animal welfare standards are devolved. The UK Labour Government is introducing reforms to the private veterinary sector to make sure that prices are competitive, and further inquiry outcomes are planned.
By choosing to tackle a niche sport, which, as members will already be aware, does not currently operate in Scotland, Mr Ruskell’s bill is chasing headlines rather than chasing a shared sense of the need to preserve and improve animal welfare and standards overall. A raft of other issues are higher up the list of Scottish people’s concerns—national health service waiting lists, housing waiting lists and the cost of living crisis, to name but a few. As a Labour MSP, I want to see the life of an animal valued and I recognise that there are people who feel strongly about the issue, but I want the limited bandwidth for such issues to be used for more meaningful and less niche issues.
I believe that the bill points a judging finger at my older constituents, who sometimes go for a walk down to the bookies and put a wee bet on the dug racing. That is them. The bill does nothing for the welfare of the greyhound breed, and it would take greyhounds a step closer to extinction or, at best, accelerate their addition to the rare breeds list. We recognise that the bill will change at subsequent stages, though, and we will look at how it can be improved.
16:31
The bill has been a long time coming, and I thank Mark Ruskell for all his work and determination in getting it to stage 1.
I am not going to mince my words. Greyhound racing is barbaric and I abhor it. I am completely baffled by Rhoda Grant and the Labour Party, and Finlay Carson and the Tories, who talk about animal welfare but are not prepared to agree to the general principles of the bill. It just does not make any sense at all.
Animals are not a product or a commodity to be used for human entertainment and profit. Between 2017 and 2020, 15 greyhounds died at Shawfield stadium in Glasgow, which is a licensed stadium. Countless greyhounds were injured or disposed of, which is often referred to by the sector as wastage. It is disgusting. Thankfully, Shawfield is now closed. To go back to the convener’s point, Thornton track is not licensed or regulated, so we will never know how many animals die or are injured and suffer at that facility, and no vet is ever present when the dogs race.
Great work by campaigners has highlighted serious welfare concerns for racing greyhounds, including a culture of drugging dogs, giving them a poor diet and, once their so-called career is over, an uncertain fate, which often includes euthanasia. I recently saw a horrific video of a dog being trapped in the pen as it tried to run out when the starter gun fired. No animal should suffer like that. These beautiful, gentle dogs spend most of their time in often dank, dirty kennels and suffer untreated wounds and injuries. They may be constantly muzzled, which is unbearably stressful for them. They are forced to race during 32°C heat, and that is downright cruelty.
Enough is enough. The abuse of these beautiful, gentle dogs must end now. Scotland now has the chance to end that barbarity and prove that we are a caring, compassionate nation in which animals are treated with the respect that they deserve. In the name of kindness, I urge members to support the bill at stage 1.
We move to closing speeches. I call Gillian Mackay, who joins us remotely, to close on behalf of the Scottish Greens.
16:34
I will begin, as other members have, by extending my thanks to my wonderful friend and colleague Mark Ruskell for introducing the bill. Mr Ruskell has been a long-time champion of this issue, and it is wonderful to see his efforts and the efforts of many tireless campaigners coming to fruition. Having been through the member’s bill process myself, I know that it cannot be overstated how this process can take over a member’s entire life.
A huge thanks should also be extended to the campaigners, the non-Government bills unit and Mark Ruskell’s staff team, who have processed hundreds of responses to his consultation. Many members will know how personally committed Mark Ruskell is to the welfare of greyhounds, and no wonder. For too long, greyhounds have suffered cruelly and unnecessarily in the name of gambling.
Some contributions this afternoon have been outright confusing. Rhoda Grant simultaneously claimed that the bill is unnecessary because there is no racing and because anyone who wanted to open an oval track would have other barriers to overcome, and that the bill does not go far enough because it does not include other tracks that would also have to overcome those same barriers. How on earth Davy Russell can say that the bill will not improve welfare is incredible, when there is clear evidence on how often these dogs are injured.
These dogs make incredible pets and they should be treated kindly and humanely. In its report on the welfare of greyhounds used for racing, the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission listed
“several causes of welfare concern, particularly the risk of injury or death at the track … the conditions under which they are reared, a significant part of a dog’s life that may be spent in kennels with restricted social contacts, and risks of neglect and poor veterinary care once their racing careers are over.”
That same report concluded that
“Greyhound racing is not inherently dangerous for the dogs involved.”
The report also cited the oversupply of puppies as a significant harm. It is estimated that around 6,000 greyhound puppies are culled in Ireland each year as a result of overbreeding. That is heartbreaking—these are dogs, not commodities. An end to racing is the only way to ensure that the suffering ends. Regulation cannot protect greyhounds from the inherent risk of injury and death or address wider welfare concerns.
The Greyhound Board of Great Britain’s data shows that the number of trackside deaths has increased annually since 2022. Injuries also remain far too high. Some injured dogs are made to race, compounding their injuries and making it harder for them to heal. According to Dogs Trust and the Blue Cross, injuries and long-term conditions include fractures, muscle, ligament and tendon injuries, ruptured skin wounds and osteoarthritis.
The evidence is clear. Without a ban, greyhounds will continue to suffer excruciating injuries that impact the length and quality of their lives. Research has shown that the turns or bends of an oval racetrack provide unique risks for racing dogs for a number of reasons, including asymmetric training and racing, centrifugal force and congestion. The risk of death and injury is built into how the tracks operate.
The bill will help greyhounds across Scotland. It will help them to live full, fulfilling lives, as every dog deserves to do. So, for Bluesy, Bob, Kass and the always wonderful Bert, it is time to back the bill and end greyhound racing for good.
I call Rhoda Grant to close on behalf of Scottish Labour.
16:37
I will first apologise to Christine Grahame. I certainly did not mean to diminish her role in introducing legislation on dog welfare. I understand how difficult it is to introduce a member’s bill. I have done so, so I did not wish to diminish what she has done. However, I think that she, and most people, would agree that we need a comprehensive bill that deals with dog welfare—indeed, animal welfare with regard to pets.
We have had a number of members’ bills, which represents a piecemeal approach towards the welfare of dogs. We have had Christine Grahame’s bills.
First of all, I thank you for your kind words, Ms Grant. We have worked together for many years on a parliamentary and personal level, so thank you for that. I support what you say—I think that we need a consolidation act—
Always through the chair, Ms Grahame.
I beg your pardon. I am always doing that, convener. I mean Presiding Officer. It has been a long week.
I agree that we need a consolidation act, because anybody who is trying to enforce the legislation wants to find it in one place, not higgledy-piggledy here and there.
I absolutely agree with Christine Grahame that we need to pull the current legislation together into one act. However, we also need to add to it, because I believe there are things missing from the current legislation. It does not cover issues such as housing, or breeding, which is a big issue, especially when animals are imported. One of the matters that we also discussed was the illegal importation of dogs into the UK, including Scotland. Many of those animals come into the country ill and have been bred in poor conditions. People pay huge amounts of money for them, but they might be buying a dog that is not going to survive. All those issues have to be dealt with.
Davy Russell talked about the cost of vet care, and it is spiralling out of control. People who buy dogs illegally from other countries are often buying dogs that need huge amounts of veterinary care, and that can be very difficult for them to provide. We need to discourage people from importing dogs illegally, and we also need to look to help people to afford veterinary care. Too often, we hear of families having to put to sleep the family pet, which is very much part of their household, just because they cannot afford to get the animal the care that it needs.
There are many animal welfare issues that we need to deal with that probably should be put in legislation beyond this bill. The bill covers activities that do not happen in Scotland, and there is so much that we should be doing that it does not cover, and that is where my concern lies. Therefore, we need to look hard at ensuring that the next Parliament brings forward comprehensive legislation on animal welfare. That could really make a difference to greyhounds as well as to every other breed that is sought after for various reasons. I hope the next Government will look at the issue and make sure that animal welfare legislation is consolidated, as well as added to.
I call Jamie Halcro Johnston to close on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives.
16:41
I congratulate Mark Ruskell on bringing his member’s bill to stage 1. Wherever we may fall on the content of the bill, it has clearly been the product of a lengthy process and considerable effort on his part that has been motivated by a legitimate concern for animal welfare. I would also like to thank the committee for all its work in producing the stage 1 report.
As we have heard, we are in the unusual position of being asked to consider legislation to ban something that does not happen within the jurisdiction of this Parliament. That ban remains, however, an issue that can evoke strong feelings in its advocates. It is also an issue that might have practical implications in the future, which I will consider later. On the other side of the coin is a sport that evokes real passion and a dedication to a breed that was bred specifically for coursing and racing.
Several organisations provided evidence on the bill in response to the committee’s call for views. Those respondents can be broadly broken down into animal welfare groups, which are overwhelmingly positive about the proposed ban, and those involved in greyhound racing, who are very much not. Those are, of course, two very entrenched and polarised positions. Both sides have, however, expressed great concern for the welfare of the animals.
It is welcome that the racing sector has pointed to the immense improvement in both the on-track and off-track welfare of these dogs. The Greyhound Board of Great Britain has highlighted a range of steps that have been taken in England through licensing.
We are all aware that no system will protect every dog from cruelty. Whether they are racing dogs, working dogs or pets, in all too many cases dogs are victims of abuse and ill-treatment at the hands of humans that any right-thinking person would find abhorrent.
The member’s consultation and the responses to the call for evidence included accounts that were very much at odds with each other when it comes to welfare, and particularly off-track welfare. Many who are involved in the sector wrote of racing greyhounds being treated as pets and cared about deeply by the majority of trainers. However, there were also several stories of presumed mistreatment that were documented by greyhound rehomers, who observed mental and physical impacts in former racing dogs. There clearly needs to be a greater understanding of the issue and, above all, appropriate policing and investigation of animal welfare cases. That is of particular concern where advocates of greyhound racing have raised the prospect that a ban would push activities underground, into a space that is unregulated and beyond open scrutiny.
I turn to the bill in more detail. Mark Ruskell has been candid about the focus on oval tracks, and the bill leaves racing on any other form of track to regulations. The Scottish Government should be open on its position here. Is it waiting to criminalise racing on the straight or other track types? If so, why does it not provide clarity on that position now?
The bill is also breed specific, and the potential loopholes resulting from that are considerable. Whippet racing currently lacks the commercial element of greyhound racing, but it looks very similar.
Where dogs are used in activities other than racing on an oval track, whether it is agility shows or working activities, do we not accept that there are some risks of the same? I mention this because legislation of this type is walking a tightrope between creating legal and illegal alternatives to established practices on the one hand and capturing unintended activities on the other. That is only made more pressing by the earlier point that the practice that the bill seeks to address is not happening in Scotland.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I do not have time. My colleague Fin Carson, speaking on behalf of the committee, highlighted that the committee did not agree on the need for the bill. Tim Eagle highlighted the recognition of some stakeholders’ belief that regulation would be more effective for the welfare issues that have been raised.
Like all of us, the minister recognises the value of dogs. I am very much with him on missing having a dog; I had a Labrador, so there is no chance of a dog like that being raced any time soon. However, I think that we all recognise the affection that people have for their dogs.
Rhoda Grant asked whether the bill was a priority given that, because of the lack of activity in Scotland, it would change nothing. Maggie Chapman’s rhetoric around the torture of animals for the entertainment of humans was perhaps unfortunate, but it maybe highlighted where we are coming from. I will not ask, because I do not have time to take the intervention, but I am concerned about where Maggie Chapman might want such bans to end. Davy Russell’s approach was very combative and talked about priorities with which I agree, but I think that Mr Ruskell’s bill has the best intentions, rather than just being about highlighting and showboating.
I recognise that I do not have a lot of time left, but I believe that there is a wide recognition of what the bill is attempting to achieve. However, it is using greyhound raising as a proxy for wider dog welfare issues. There is an acceptance that the bill is so narrow that it addresses a problem that we all recognise does not exist. Rather than legislation, I would like to see a commitment from the Scottish Government to investing in the proper policing and enforcement of animal welfare cases, whether they arise in the course of racing or any other activity.
16:47
I thank all members for their contributions to the debate. I am glad that Rhoda Grant reminded herself of the enormous amount of work that Christine Grahame did on her Welfare of Dogs (Scotland) Bill. Our officials are working with Christine Grahame on the code of practice.
I will mention some of the other things that the Scottish Government is doing on animal welfare. We were involved in the UK bill to control the import of dogs, cats and ferrets. We are looking at the regulation of canine fertility clinic activities. We are looking at licensing for dog-related activities such as dog walking and boarding. I understand that people are saying that all that should be in one piece of legislation, but right now we do not have the ability to do that. The legislation that we are putting in place demonstrates that the Government takes animal welfare seriously.
Going back to the subject of the bill that we have in front of us, I continue to believe that the bill’s stated aim is to address the inherent welfare risks that are associated with running dogs at speed on oval tracks—risks that, even with good practice, cannot be eliminated entirely, and which licensing could not eliminate. The Government supports the principles of the bill because it is targeted—it is a proportionate response to a specific welfare risk that is associated with tracks of an oval design.
Licensing can undoubtedly improve standards. It can bring transparency and ensure accountability, but it would not remove the welfare risks that are inherent in racing greyhounds on tracks of an oval design. In its current form, the bill would address those risks.
I will go back to the point about what is missing here. We do not think that the bill will address Mark Ruskell’s concerns. The minister said:
“at this time the Scottish Government is not persuaded of the need to ban greyhound racing in Scotland. In particular, we are not convinced that such a ban is a proportionate and fair response to the animal welfare concerns”.—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 22 May 2024; c 4.]
When he made that statement, was the minister aware of any racing of greyhounds in Scotland other than on ovals?
We have narrated that so many times that I am beginning to get dizzy.
I just want a straight answer.
In the initial committee session that I attended, we were talking about a bill with a much broader scope. Mr Ruskell then brought back the bill that we have in front of us. The Government has decided to support this bill on the basis that it focuses on oval designs.
That is not true. That is not accurate.
Mr Carson.
Mr Carson is sitting there and chuntering away; he talks about there being only an oval track. I do not know where members are on this, because Davy Russell, Rhoda Grant and Jamie Halcro Johnston have all said that no racing is happening in Scotland, but there is a track in Scotland. It is in Thornton, and it still has the ability, with an oval track, to race greyhounds.
I wonder whether the minister finds it as difficult as I do to understand the line of argument that this particular form of racing is not happening. Does he share my cynicism that, had the bill been introduced a few years ago, the very same members who are making that argument would be telling us that we have no business shutting down an economically viable business? They would be using a different argument to achieve the same effect.
I will not put thoughts in the minds of other members, as they are more than capable of making those points for themselves, but I understand the point that Mr Harvie is trying to make.
I will go back to the Thornton track, because I want to put it on the record that we absolutely understand and respect the social value that Thornton provided to a small community, and we recognise that those who attended to race their dogs will be disappointed that we are supporting the bill’s principles. However, a study by the University of Technology Sydney says:
“The low number of spectators attending race meets does not warrant or justify the continued usage of oval-shaped tracks.”
The welfare of Scotland’s animals must be protected, and the bill will do that.
We do not expect major rehoming issues—a concern that was also raised—to arise in Scotland as a consequence of the bill. I note that the Dogs Trust and the Scottish SPCA have supported the bill. We will continue to engage with rehoming charities. We will monitor the situation closely and offer support where it may be required.
I emphasise that the Government’s position on the bill relates solely to the specific welfare concerns that were raised, based on the evidence that was presented regarding racing greyhounds on oval tracks. It should not be interpreted as indicating a wider position on other animal-related sports, as was mentioned by someone else. For each track, there will be separate circumstances, a separate regulatory framework and a separate evidence base to consider.
I note that there is huge public support for the bill. The petition to ban the activity was the most-signed petition in the Scottish Parliament’s history. I commit to working with Mark Ruskell and the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee on the bill, to ensure that it addresses the inherent welfare risks that are associated with running dogs at speed on oval tracks.
16:52
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.
Will Mark Ruskell give way?
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.
Will Mark Ruskell give way on that point?
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.