Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

I note that, for the time being, racing is not happening at Thornton. Through company records, we understand that two full-time equivalent employees are, or were, based there. It is not clear whether those employees are still working, given that no greyhound racing is taking place there.

I think that the biggest implication will relate to dogs. The Scottish Greyhound Sanctuary has said, I think, that they have already taken into their care the last three dogs that raced at Thornton. When Shawfield shut, animal charities, including the Dogs Trust, managed to successfully rehome all the dogs from there—I think that they have finally all been successfully rehomed. When it comes to transition, the biggest issue is the dogs.

When it comes to the owner’s aspirations for the future of the asset that he has at Thornton, that is a private matter and a private consideration. Reports have been compiled on the potential for housing in the area. One report has looked at the suitability of the site for housing, what economic investment that could bring to Fife and the kinds of jobs that could be created. That is a live discussion with Thornton community council, given that it has a local place plan and there are housing allocations.

Those are private matters regarding what will happen afterwards. The situation right now is that Thornton is not operational. Nothing is happening there. One of the reasons why racing has stopped—alongside the campaigns and the evidence that has been taken around the bill—is that the bookie retired.

It is in line with the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006.

I go back to the fundamental point that the Scottish Parliament is concerned with Scots law. I do not believe that the Welsh Senedd has the ability to apply penalties of that kind, because it applies English law.

I will highlight the Scotland-specific data that the committee has received in the past. I point to the figures that were collected at Shawfield stadium, when it was running, between 2018 and 2020, which were produced as a result of it being licensed by the Greyhound Board of Great Britain. During that period, there were 197 injuries and 15 fatalities. We know that the injury rate at Shawfield is comparable to that at every other greyhound racing stadium across the UK.

Where specific data is available—a number of the people who have given testimony have taken dogs from Shawfield and Thornton, as well as from England—we can see that there is an impact on the dogs. Being raced on an oval track involves the same inherent risk, regardless of whether they are raced in England, Wales or Scotland.

They were part-time staff, I think, and they were probably running facilities at the venue such as bars. However, the greyhound track is not open, and it has not been open for some time.

I do not want to see the rehoming of greyhounds that have had to be rescued from the industry because they have been damaged and face trauma; I want to end that. Those who work in the greyhound rehoming sector want to end greyhound racing as well. They do not want the problem of having dozens of dogs to rehome—and, let us face it, the majority of them come from England, where about 490 trainers are racing dogs. They do not want to have to deal with that trauma or with the rehabilitation of dogs and the extensive veterinary treatment that they require.

If there is a rehoming crisis—and I believe that there is one—it is being driven across the UK by the number of dogs that are being wasted month in, month out. Young dogs at the prime of their life are facing injuries. I read out some testimonies from individuals who have rehomed greyhounds, and they very much accord with my lived experience of doing that.

The way to tackle the rehoming crisis is to end greyhound racing and end the inherent risk. That is what the bill would do in Scotland and it is what the Welsh bill will do in Wales. It is for other jurisdictions to consider—as jurisdictions around the world have done—whether they want to continue with the same numbers of dogs coming through week in, week out. It is heartbreaking. Charities are trying to find forever homes for these dogs, but there are so many. Fundamentally, the way to address the rehoming crisis is to end the need to rehome greyhounds.

I would need to reflect on individual submissions, particularly those that have come from animal welfare charities, but that has been an area of discussion with them. There is an understanding among animal welfare charities that the bill has a narrow focus; it is focused on the inherent risk associated with racing a greyhound in Scotland. However, there is a wider concern. Again, it is a question for the Scottish Government as to how it will address that concern. I would like to see some progress in that area, but that should not detract from what the bill is trying to achieve, which is the first step of establishing an offence of racing a greyhound in Scotland.

The issue comes on the back of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 not being able to address the issues that surround the racing of greyhounds in Scotland. That is partly because greyhound racing is inherently a lawful activity, so it has been difficult to prove that there has been unnecessary suffering of greyhounds. The 2006 act has not worked, in that it has not dealt with that inherent suffering. Therefore, the only way forward, as I see it, is to bring in the offence of racing a greyhound.

My hope is that other jurisdictions will perhaps follow Scotland’s lead. The Welsh bill is going through the Senedd at the moment and there is an active discussion about the issue in Ireland. There are countries, states and jurisdictions around the world that have gone ahead and banned greyhound racing while this committee has been taking evidence. There is a direction of travel and an international consensus that creating the offence of racing a greyhound is the right way to go. I hope that, over time, such consensus will result in benefits for all dogs.