Seòmar agus comataidhean

As the minister said, amendment 8 removes the time bar for bringing forward proceedings. That will make the bill more consistent with the approach taken in the 2006 act. It would also allow greater time for investigation of offences and avoid instances where proceedings cannot be commenced—for example, if an investigation was particularly complex. I am persuaded that the amendment would be useful and I am happy to support it.

I am not entirely sure what the purpose of the amendment is, and I do not know whether anyone else in the committee is either.

It is quite clear that the bill is intended to prevent a resumption of greyhound racing in Scotland. The committee will know, from evidence that it has taken from the owners of the Thornton track, that the intention is very much to continue to race greyhounds in Scotland. However, the amendment appears to relate to those who are rehoming greyhounds. Again, I do not see the purpose of it.

As the minister stated, the Welfare of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2025 includes a code of practice that sets out a range of considerations relating to the health and welfare of dogs. Should a greyhound that no longer races be rehomed, the new owner would be required to have regard to the code of practice. There is also more general best practice guidance to help those who are responsible for dogs to meet their duty of care under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006.

10:15

It is worth noting that a number of rescue and rehoming centres that are based in Scotland, including those of the Dogs Trust, which has given evidence to the committee, and the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, have indicated their willingness to care for and find suitable homes for greyhounds that have previously been used in racing. After the Shawfield stadium shut down, all the dogs that previously raced there were successfully rehomed by reputable rehoming charities. Taking that into account and given the existing guidance and codes of practice related to the welfare of dogs, it is unclear what the purpose of additional guidance would be and what it would contain. Therefore, I do not support amendment 19.

The bill as introduced would come into force 12 months after royal assent. When the bill was drafted, that was deemed appropriate, as it would allow a lead-in time for the owners of Thornton racetrack and others, such as rehoming centres, to put in place any measures that would be required to prepare for the change in the law. However, I accept the Scottish Government’s reasoning that, by commencing the bill by regulations, it can be assured that all the appropriate measures have been put into place before the bill comes into force. It goes back to the earlier point that we can streamline the approach and relate it more to the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006. I hope that the court guidance can then be updated quickly, so that we can move to a speedy implementation of the regulations under the bill.

Amendment 18 would provide flexibility, allowing the bill to come into force sooner than 12 months after royal assent should all the appropriate measures be in place earlier. I thank the minister and his officials for engaging with me on this matter and on all the amendments at stage 2. I am content to support amendment 18.

The enforcement powers that are provided for in the bill allow the courts to make deprivation, disqualification or seizure orders where an offence has been committed, should they deem it appropriate to do so. The powers are modelled on the appropriate equivalent provisions in the Animal Health and Welfare Act (Scotland) 2006 and the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Act 2023, tailored where necessary to ensure that they are appropriate for offences that are created in the bill.

I previously indicated that I was open to the Scottish Government’s suggestion that the bill should be amended so that the provisions of deprivation, disqualification and seizure orders under part 2 of the 2006 act can be applied instead of the enforcement powers that are provided for in sections 5 to 9 of the bill as introduced. I thank the minister and his officials for the useful discussions that we have had in regard to the amendments.

I accept the Government’s view that it would be preferable and more consistent to provide for post-conviction orders by means of the 2006 act. I also accept the minister’s view that the amendments would allow enforcement of the bill to be streamlined and avoid the need to establish new court processes. I hope that that will allow the implementation of the bill to be sped up.

I am content that, should the amendments be agreed to, my intended outcome—that the courts have sufficient power and flexibility to impose appropriate sanctions on anyone who is found guilty of the bill’s two primary offences—will be achieved. I am therefore content with the proposed amendments in this group and am happy to support them.

Amendment 4 agreed to.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule—Enforcement powers

Amendments 5 to 7 moved—[Jim Fairlie]—and agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Section 4—Time limit for summary proceedings

It is clear that when individuals carry out serious criminal behaviour and end up in court, it should be in the gift of the courts to restrict their access to a bus pass, or even to public transport full stop, should they consider that appropriate. That is the way to deal with criminals who are going through the criminal justice system.

With regard to the order, which is about concessionary bus passes, I cannot see how it will make any difference whatsoever to that criminal behaviour—not one jot. All that we are saying, in effect, is that somebody does not have a free bus pass any longer, but they are still at liberty to get on board whatever bus they want. They are still at liberty to be in a bus station or throw bricks at a bus from the side of the road, as we have seen in Clackmannanshire and in Edinburgh.

The order will not change anything, but it will set up a very costly bureaucratic system—

I am fine.

Staying on the theme of people, you are Scotland’s national access agency and yet, looking at your corporate plan for 2026 to 2030, I do not see a focus on enhancing public access. Could you say a little bit more about why that is and what your work will be going forward on that important issue?

The issue that I want to address is quite narrow compared with what is covered in the conditions of carriage. I know from talking to groups such as Engender that work to tackle violence against women and girls, that they would perhaps call for types of harassment to be specified in the code. At the moment, the code refers to “any kind of harassment”. It does not refer specifically to sexual harassment, which we know is a major issue for women and girls on public transport. I am curious about why the code makes a broad reference to harassment without specifying sexual harassment.

The code also mentions indecent language, which I do not think is included in many of the operator conditions of carriage. I am thinking about how members of staff such as bus drivers will police that. What is considered indecent language? What kind of training will be available? It will not be members of the public who will report such instances; it will be hard-working bus drivers and other operatives who will have to make a judgment about whether someone has crossed the line.

That is a no, then.

Do your officials have any thoughts on conditionality?