Chamber and committees

I go back to what I said about the evidence that the committee has had from the owner of Thornton, who wants to start racing again and expand racing in Scotland. I do not therefore think that it is a given that no dogs will ever race again in Scotland, even if the bill does not go through. Indeed, the reverse might be the case. The evidence that the committee took from the person who is running the last remaining greyhound stadium in Scotland suggested that.

The wider issues are matters for other jurisdictions around the UK. A bill is going through in Wales, and discussions are also taking place at Westminster. Ultimately, the only way to deal with issues around the welfare of greyhounds is to end greyhound racing. Introducing licensing will not bring about those benefits or tackle the inherent risk.

The figures that we have, which have come from the licensed industry, do not show that the picture has improved in the years during which that data has been gathered. Despite the attempts of the licensed industry to bring in a better welfare strategy for greyhounds in 2022, and despite the introduction of new standards of track maintenance, the picture has not shifted fundamentally. The licensed sector is now highly licensed, but dogs are still being injured and killed in that sector. I believe that the figures for the past year show that the number of deaths has gone up.

I do not see licensing as a way of tackling that inherent risk. I think that the Scottish Government has come to the same conclusion on the back of the SAWC report and by looking again at the evidence and the numbers that have been coming through. Licensing has not worked. If licensing had worked and there had been no or hardly any injuries or deaths, we would be having a different conversation. However, the view of all the animal welfare charities, the Scottish Government and SAWC centres around the same conclusion, which is that licensing has not delivered that result. If the suggestion is that we need to create a bespoke licensing provision that might help the dogs in some way, my response is that licensing has not worked up to now, and it certainly will not deal with the fundamental issue of the number of dogs that are being killed and injured.

The penalties in the bill derive from those in the 2006 act, which has been in operation for almost 20 years. The courts are used to applying those penalties appropriately. They are, of course, the maximum penalties that would be available—there is existing legal provision in that regard.

On the decisions of the Senedd, I note that there is a different devolution settlement in Wales. Scots law applies in Scotland, and I think that English law applies in Wales. We have Scots law within our jurisdiction, and the Parliament can adjust criminal penalties. That might explain some of the differences in approach.

I ask Nick Hawthorne to come in if he has additional detail.

I refer back to the work of the committee. You commissioned the report from the SAWC, which reflected the scientific evidence, and the scientific evidence reflected the inherent risk of dogs racing around an oval track. It is about what happens on that first curve, the centrifugal forces, the way that the dogs collide in the congestion at that first turn and the injuries and deaths that occur as a result. I have endeavoured to introduce an evidence-based bill that reflects the evidence that the committee has had.

The thinking has evolved over time as the committee has taken evidence. There is potential to go further and to have an all-encompassing definition of a track should the need arise. However, I do not see the need to put that into primary legislation, because this legislation needs to follow the evidence, and the evidence that you and I have had is about the risk that is inherent in oval tracks. That is the starting point.

I noted the questions that you asked last week, convener. I would say only that the Government has had time to reflect on the evidence and that the SAWC is advising the Government, too. In the memorandum that the committee received, the minister and his officials underlined the key parts of the evidence that the SAWC raised in relation to that inherent risk and the scientific basis for it.

I also note that the minister said last week that, despite some earlier scepticism, the Government had kept an open mind on the bill and had said that it would wait to see what was brought forward. I have now introduced a bill that I believe reflects the evidence, and I am grateful that the Scottish Government has reconsidered the evidence and moved from a neutral position to supporting the general principles of the bill.

The SAWC’s evidence in its report, which was provided to the committee, focused on the inherent risk of oval tracks, and the bill would end the operation of and the racing of dogs on oval tracks.

In many ways, the unlicensed track that runs in Scotland at Thornton is an underground track. It does not collect or report figures to GBGB. However, the nature of that track is similar to every other greyhound racing track in Scotland and across the UK, so the inherent risk is the same. The peer-reviewed scientific evidence shows that there is an inherent risk in racing a dog around an oval track. When the dogs reach the first curve, they face a centrifugal force on their bodies. There is the risk of them colliding as the pack of four to six dogs narrows to chase the lure. There is the impact on and the injury to their left front leg and their rear right leg. Those injuries do not change depending on whether the track is licensed or unlicensed.

On your point about whether licensing brings some marginal animal welfare benefits, although having a vet at the trackside is undoubtedly beneficial if a dog gets injured, the purpose of the bill is to prevent such injuries from happening in the first instance. It is through racing at high speed on oval tracks that those injuries occur.

I do not believe that that would be within the scope of the bill. The committee will have received the memorandum from the minister and can reflect on the evidence that he gave last week. I am not discounting the fact that there are still issues and that greyhounds will probably still suffer, but transporting dogs is a wider issue that the Government would need to consider.

Self-regulation is the system that we have at the moment. In that system, there are licensed tracks, they have a set of rules and they are responsible for enforcement of the rules. However, data from the licensed part of the sector shows that the inherent risk is not going down; dogs continue to be killed and injured. There are examples of trainers falling foul of GBGB rules and being struck off, but that does not affect the fundamental picture of the number of dogs that are being injured or killed.

There are examples of GBGB trainers who have been found to be abusing animals, and it has taken a long time for those trainers to have their licences revoked. Evidence of that came through in the consultation. There was a Scottish dog connected with Shawfield called Dudleys Forever. A steward at Shawfield uncovered the dog in an absolutely dreadful state and reported it, but it took a long time to bring an inquiry and for the trainer to be effectively struck off. The dog had to be put down—it was half the weight that it should have been. It was in an absolutely dreadful state, as I said, yet it was very difficult for the Crown to get a prosecution for unnecessary suffering in that case.

It all comes back to the fact that licensing is not working. If it was working, would I be here today? I am not sure, but it is not working, which builds the case for the bill.

I point to the evidence that the committee has gathered: the six evidence sessions, the public call for views on the bill, and the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission report, which focused on what happens in Scotland and reviewed some of the scientific work on the inherent risk of racing dogs around oval tracks. I also point to the licensing review that the Scottish Government conducted and all the evidence that came from that.

Regarding the evidence base and the consultation around my member’s bill, I undertook consultation during 2024. I hope that the committee has some of that evidence and the responses before it. A number of organisations gave evidence as part of that process, including the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service; GBGB, which is the Greyhound Board of Great Britain; animal welfare charities; and a number of individual professionals who race greyhounds in the Scottish sector.

Through the consultation, extensive evidence was also given by people who had rehomed greyhounds. I had dozens of testimonies from those individuals; I will read out one or two. Somebody said:

“I have seen the devastating impact that greyhound racing has. These dogs arrive not as dogs but as traumatised machines. They are scared by the littlest, most common, things and don’t know how to function in a normal home.”

Somebody else said:

“My second dog was a rescue. His owner was caught giving the dog high doses of painkillers so he could still race on a badly injured wrist. The injury affected him for the rest of his life, continually swelling and ending up with chronic arthritis.”

Another person said:

“I adopted an ex-racing greyhound in 2017. When I adopted him, he looked moth-eaten, very thin, had patches of dandruff all over his coat and an old injury to his hock which he got while racing. He had bull-back legs caused by friction and being forced into traps to race. He had separation anxiety for the remainder of his life. I had to change my job to accommodate his needs.”

Here is a final one. It makes difficult reading.

“I adopted an ex-racer. His body is broken from racing. He has sore legs, came to me with an amputated tail, a sore back. This has not gone away after four years. My ex-racer was retired at two years old after allegedly only four races. His body is broken from it. He takes pain medication every day. His teeth were all worn down from gnawing at the cage he was in in kennels, and he has a sore back from being hit. Despite this, he’s the most gentle and kind boy.”

The evidence base shows us that there is an inherent risk in racing a dog at high speed around a curved track. The implication of that is that the dogs leave the industry when they are very young and are rehomed. The evidence that we have from the rehomers is absolutely critical. The committee has also had stats from GBGB. It has the empirical and scientific evidence that explains that inherent risk.

All are examples of dogs that have raced on oval tracks. They will be a mixture of dogs that have come from England and dogs that have come from Scotland. The critical point of the bill is that it focuses on the inherent risk of racing a dog around an oval track. All the tracks that exist in Scotland are oval in nature. They are the same as the tracks that exist in England. The inherent risk is well understood and well studied. It has been shown what that risk is and the impact that it can have on the dogs.