Seòmar agus comataidhean

Where is your evidence for that in stats and figures?

There are limits. We no longer send children up chimneys to clean them because there is an inherent risk in that.

I think you know that that is not what I am saying.

I think that you said at the outset that you are not persuaded by the argument that the petitioners have brought forward and this committee has been considering for some time now.

You said that you were not persuaded at this point and that you did not feel that the proposal was proportionate. That was your starting point. Where does public opinion sit within this? We have spoken at length about the small number of people who own and race dogs at Thornton, but public opinion is strongly behind a ban on greyhound racing, which is what the petitioners want. The petition itself was the most signed petition in the 25-year history of the Scottish Parliament. Where do you think public opinions sits?

To go back to the legislation that was passed in the previous session of Parliament, which prohibited the performance, display and exhibition of wild animals in travelling circuses, at that time—and I think Mr Voas will know more about this, given that he worked on the Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (Scotland) Bill—there were not any wild animals in travelling circuses in Scotland, or there were very few. Arguably, as there were not many animals involved in that, it probably was not the biggest animal welfare issue in Scotland at the time, but there was strong public support for a ban on the use of wild animals in travelling circuses and, to give the Government its due, it moved forward on that legislation, which was considered by the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee and passed by Parliament. What do you think about public opinion? Does that have any bearing with this Government?

It is there, yes.

Are dogs raced differently at Thornton compared to Shawfield? Are they raced at different speeds? What is the difference in inherent risk if the tracks are the same?

If a dog is racing at Thornton or a dog is racing at Shawfield, what does that lesser scale gambling environment mean in terms of animal welfare and where is the evidence that you have—

GBGB has standards and, for example, a requirement for a vet at trackside. Are you saying that it is preferable to have an unlicensed environment in that although the tracks are the same and the risk to the dogs is the same, it is better than a licensed GBGB set-up in terms of animal welfare?

It will be a way of monitoring and getting data on deaths and injuries. However, we already have data on deaths and injuries. Across the UK, there were 22,284 dogs with significant injuries between 2018 and 2022 and, I think, 868 dogs that died. Those figures include the numbers from Shawfield in Glasgow where, as I said earlier, the injury rate was slightly higher than the GB average. How much more data do you need? It could be the fact that, if Thornton does not continue to race, you will never get the data, but you already have a lot of data about dogs racing around tracks at 40mph. How many times do we need dogs racing around a track at 40mph to recognise that they break their legs, they have catastrophic injuries and they get put down?