Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will ask Elaine Ritchie a specific question. I recently met Stewarts of Tayside, which employs a lot of Ukrainian workers, sometimes on a seasonal basis and sometimes on a longer-term basis. The concern that it and some of its workers had is that although there is an assurance that the temporary visas can be extended to December 2022, the paperwork for their formal extension has not yet come through. Is that something that you are aware of, particularly in the rural context where there are a lot of Ukrainian seasonal workers in Perth and Kinross? Are you urging the Home Office to make sure that people are getting the necessary documents so that they have the assurance that they need that they can stay?

Do other members of the panel have any further reflections on that or examples to give?

There have been some examples in England where, under the Ukraine family scheme, extended family members have been brought over. There have then been some difficulties in relation to securing appropriate accommodation and some of those people have gone on to present as homeless. Has that happened in Scotland? Do you foresee that happening or will the structures that are being put in place here mitigate against anything like that happening?

I hope that that will come through in the next week, because we are running up to the end of the month. I have one extra question about undocumented Ukrainian citizens who were here before 1 January 2022. They are a bit caught, because they are not part of any of the current schemes that have been announced to enable people to have extended visas here.

Is that a problem? Are there significant numbers of people involved? Do you know how many people are here and are undocumented—and are therefore ineligible for the schemes? Do you have any concerns around that and about how people could potentially be affected by the Rwandan scheme or any other scheme?

Yes—if we could get a COSLA perspective, that would be good, too.

Thank you very much, convener. You will be well aware of the discussions on the petition in the predecessor committee.

I want to give this committee a bit of context. Parliament passed the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Bill back in 2006. The Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 places a duty of care on all those people who keep animals or are pet owners to protect those animals

“from suffering, injury and disease.”

In session 2, I was on the Environment and Rural Development Committee, which scrutinised the bill that became the 2006 act as it went through Parliament. The issue of racing greyhounds was discussed, albeit very briefly, and the consensus in the committee at the time was that the provisions in the bill that we were examining should be enough to drive welfare improvements across society in relation to greyhounds as well. That was the belief back then, but, looking at where we are now, a decade and a half later, the evidence shows that we are not seeing an improvement with regard to racing greyhounds. It is clear that, instead of their being protected from suffering and injury, they are increasingly being subjected to suffering and injury. The figures that the petition highlights, which show the increased numbers of deaths and injuries, demonstrate that.

That has been happening at a time when there has been increased scrutiny of the industry. To be fair to the industry, it has attempted to reform. It has put in place what it calls a greyhound commitment, as an attempt to increase welfare standards. However, all of that seems to have completely failed. The figures—the injuries and the suffering—are going in the wrong direction.

I support the petition because I genuinely think that the industry is beyond reform. That goes back to the inherent risks in greyhound racing that the petitioners have outlined. We are talking about dogs going round a track at 40mph—there are inherent risks from collisions between dogs, and between the dogs and the track infrastructure. That raises not only serious welfare questions about how we treat and deal with the injuries that arise from greyhounds racing, but major ethical considerations about why we are putting dogs in that situation in the first place, knowing full well that they will have an increased risk of injury and death.

There is a major ethical consideration as well as a welfare consideration. On that basis, the issue reminds me of our consideration in the previous session of Parliament of the bill that became the Wild Animals in Circuses Act 2019. There are parallels. We are in a situation in which there is next to no greyhound industry in Scotland, as was the case with the circus industry that was using wild animals in travelling circuses, and it appears that a ban would result in virtually no economic impact in Scotland.

We are also seeing widespread and gathering support for a ban on greyhound racing. It is significant that, last week, the SSPCA came out in favour of a ban. That is very welcome. I am aware that the SSPCA has been very patient with the industry for a long period of time and has worked closely with it, so the fact that the organisation has come to the conclusion that a ban should be put in place is significant.

With regard to next steps that the committee might consider, writing to the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission is, regrettably, overdue, so that should be done. However, I am aware that the commission currently has a very busy work programme.

The time for scrutiny is now. There is scrutiny of the issue in the Welsh Senedd and at Westminster. I think that it is time for this Parliament to take the lead as well, so this morning’s session is very welcome. If more evidence—oral evidence in particular—is taken, that might provide a better evidence base on which to write to the Scottish Government and get a clear position. The Government is currently referring back to the 2006 act, which, as we have heard today, is not working for greyhounds and is not driving the welfare improvements that are needed.

Everybody else is.

I think that the FOI responses that have come back show the limits of what can be done through premises licensing and alcohol licensing. Those licensing frameworks are set by legislation that is very specific to the issues that it deals with.

There are challenges for Fife Council in trying to regulate a greyhound racing track, even if it wanted to. Considering all the concerns and issues that have been raised here today, another form of licensing would just be a contortion that would make it very difficult for Fife Council to do that. That gap is the issue that the petitioners are raising. We just do not have the right tools, through the 2006 act and premises licensing, to ensure the safety of animals.

I think that it would be a service for the Government to get evidence for a parliamentary committee that is doing a deep dive into the issues and unpacking them, and that that would inform the Government’s view. I come back to the point that there are inherent risks in dogs running around a track at 40mph, such as a high risk of collision. In that situation it is very difficult—if not impossible—to protect animals from “suffering” and “injury” as the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 requires. The petitioners might have thoughts on how some of the enforcement issues have been very difficult for the SSPCA and others to follow up on in relation to the strict legal provisions in the 2006 act and the issues around doping and clear-cut abuses of animal welfare.

It might be better if Gill expands on that.

Thank you. Tim Lord, what are your reflections on the question of onshore wind and solar?