Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have a question for Paul Brignal. There has been a bit of discussion this morning about comparing apples and pears and the difference between regulated and unregulated tracks. Is the design of your track the same as that of a GBGB track or is it fundamentally different in shape?

On that basis, is the inherent risk that a dog faces in running at 40mph around an oval track in Thornton the same as the risk that a dog faces in running around an oval track in London, Glasgow or anywhere else?

Why am I wrong?

There is substantial veterinary evidence, which the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission has reflected on. Clearly, the GBGB will be looking at that evidence as part of its own review.

I come back to my question. Where is your evidence that what you have in Thornton, with dogs running round an oval track at 40mph, is different from dogs running round an oval track at 40mph at Shawfield? How are the inherent risks of a hobby sport any different from those of a professional track?

I want to go back to the issue of euthanasia. You introduced some figures. I gather that 1,400 dogs were euthanised over a four-year period from 2018 to 2021 for a range of different reasons, including difficulties with rehoming and treatment costs. I want to ask Professor Campbell about some comments that she made recently on euthanasia. These are your words, Professor Campbell:

“Euthanasia at the end of a racing career has the advantage that the fate of the animal is secured, and the guarantee that the animal will not suffer any subsequent welfare problems.”

Can you explain what you meant by that? On the face of it, it sounds like you were saying that the dog would be better off dead.

Is that a yes on straight track research?

To go back to my question, are you looking at straight tracks?

Convener, I do not know whether other members want to come in before I move on to my next question.

Cabinet secretary, I want to ask you about ESS’s views on the review cycle for the air quality action plans. I think that you have decided to stick with the five-year review cycle, but ESS has said that it does not think that that is consistent with the aim of achieving compliance in

“as short a time as possible”.

Can you say more about why the Government has decided to align itself with a five-year review cycle rather than something shorter?

In the previous session, Fiona Hyslop talked about the need to move rapidly to tackle air quality, particularly given the nature of vulnerable groups, young people and older people, and pointed out that five years is a long time in someone’s lifetime. Five years can be a long time for councils, too. Local development plans and development proposals can come and go; bus companies can pull out of certain investments; and other things can come forward. A lot can happen in five years in the life of a plan in any area in Scotland. Do you not think that, in that context, five years could be too long and that councils could quite quickly find their plans out of date and overtaken by events on the ground?