The first two amendments in the group clarify that the offence of racing a greyhound on a track will arise only when the race occurs at a track in Scotland. I acknowledge that Mark Ruskell previously said that the bill does not affect greyhound racing in England, but it is important for the Government to provide a clear statement on what we consider the position to be on the jurisdiction and territorial extent of an offence that can attract criminal sanctions. The number of people affected by the bill is small—it is those who keep greyhounds in Scotland for racing at an oval track in Scotland. However, individuals whose activities are currently lawful are entitled to certainty on which of their current activities will be criminalised by the bill and which will remain lawful. Amendments 1 and 2 are necessary to give the law that clarity.

Racing a greyhound at an oval track in Scotland will be criminalised, but keeping or kennelling a greyhound in Scotland and training a greyhound in Scotland for racing in England will remain lawful, as will transporting a greyhound to England for racing. The offence does not cover those activities. I have lodged these amendments to avoid any confusion about this part of the bill and how it impacts the criminal law in Scotland. The amendments will make it clear that an offence will not be committed under the bill if a dog is taken from Scotland to run at a racetrack elsewhere. It is important to clarify that, as matters stand, the United Kingdom Government does not have any plans to prohibit greyhound racing in England.

Amendment 2 will also make it clear that the power to change the definition of a racetrack cannot be used to extend the offences in the bill to racetracks outwith Scotland. It is important to have clear words in the bill to clarify those points, so that greyhound owners can have certainty about what they can and cannot do with their dogs. The ban is only on running at oval tracks and does not prevent greyhound owners from exercising their dogs in other ways.

Amendment 3 expressly limits the power to modify the definition of racetrack used in the bill, so that it can be used only for the purpose of preventing harm to greyhounds. That is consistent with the policy behind the bill and will ensure that the power is used to expand the definition beyond oval tracks to include other shapes of racetrack only where there is an animal welfare justification. As I have said throughout the process of the bill, there needs to be a solid evidence base before we legislate on these matters.

I move amendment 1.

My amendments in this group remove provisions from the bill regarding the post-conviction powers of the courts, such as powers to impose deprivation and disqualification orders, and instead amend equivalent provisions of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 so that they apply in relation to offences under the bill. I have lodged the amendments so that existing rules and procedures in relation to post-conviction orders can be used in relation to the bill and to apply record-keeping duties under the 2006 act in relation to disqualification orders for offences under the bill.

The provisions in the 2006 act being applied are modified as appropriate for the offences under the bill. For example, if a disqualification order is made in relation to a conviction for an offence under the bill, any disqualifications imposed can only be in respect of greyhounds and not other animals.

I move amendment 4.

I understand Rhoda Grant’s reasons for lodging this probing amendment, but I believe that the Scottish Government already has robust legislation to protect the welfare of greyhounds exiting the racing industry. The Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 applies to all dogs, including greyhounds, and requires that their welfare needs be addressed. Last year, the Parliament passed the Welfare of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2025, which requires that anyone selling or otherwise transferring ownership of any dog for any reason must have regard to a code of practice setting out a range of considerations relating to the health and welfare of the dog, including the provision of veterinary records and medical history.

Further, we are aware that there does not appear to have been any greyhound racing at Thornton since March last year, so we would expect that very few, if any, dogs that were previously kept for racing are likely to be affected. It is also worth remembering that the bill does nothing to prevent dogs that are kennelled in Scotland from being raced in other parts of the United Kingdom, so dogs that are currently being raced in England should not be affected by the bill. I therefore consider the amendment to be unnecessary. I understand why Rhoda Grant lodged it, but I ask her not to press it.

The amendment provides that the main provisions of the bill will commence on a date that is specified by ministers in regulations and not a fixed date, as per the current drafting of the bill. That will ensure that the substantive provisions of the bill can be brought into force at an appropriate time, when all the resources, processes and procedures are in place.

I move amendment 18.

I have nothing further to add, convener.

Amendment 18 agreed to.

Section 13, as amended, agreed to.

Section 14 agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

Amendment 8 will remove the time-bar rule in section 4 of the bill for the two main offences under the bill. The amendment is consistent with the approach that is taken in the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, in which there is no time-bar rule in relation to the offences that are triable either summarily or on indictment. Removal of section 4 will allow greater time for investigation of offences and avoid the prospect of failure to commence proceedings due to the complexity of investigation.

I move amendment 8.

I am not going to say what Transport Scotland’s decision would be, because Transport Scotland would have to go through the process. However, if somebody is carrying out criminality on a bus, my expectation is that Transport Scotland would go through the process, ensure that it is being robust and take the appropriate action.

Again, that will have to be worked through with Transport Scotland’s officials and stakeholders, and it would have to be done on an individual basis, because there is a huge amount of complexity in this area. I cannot tell you what the exact threshold will be, because it would have to be worked out individually.

That would be for the Parliament to decide in the next session. There is a lot of on-going work around antisocial behaviour that should tackle those things. There is on-going work with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Police Scotland the bus companies on hotspots. If there are hotspots, they will be known to the local communities. There is on-going work on that, and there is an independent working group. I think that five recommendations came out of that work on antisocial behaviour—not on buses, but on antisocial behaviour in general.

This is a problem that we need to tackle more widely, but the SSI is specifically about action that we can take on people who are using their bus pass and committing antisocial behaviour while they are using that pass.

Are you effectively asking me whether we have done any modelling on how many bus passes will be removed as a result of the code of conduct?