Seòmar agus comataidhean

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

Although I am content that the bill is sufficiently clear that offences will apply only where a greyhound has been raced on a track in Scotland, I accept the Government’s suggestion that setting that out expressly in the bill would be helpful, particularly given that, should the bill pass, the legal position in relation to greyhound racing will be different in Scotland compared to other parts of the UK. A similar amendment to the Prohibition of Greyhound Racing (Wales) Bill has gone through the Welsh Senedd.

On amendment 3, as the policy memorandum sets out, my intention is to include a regulation-making power that allows Scottish ministers to amend the definition of a racetrack to allow the Government to change the definition should racing on circular or straight tracks, or other types of premises, develop and prove to be harmful to greyhounds. I am content to accept amendment 3 and the other amendments in the group.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendments 2 and 3 moved—[Jim Fairlie]—and agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

Section 2 agreed to.

Section 3—Powers of enforcement

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.

So, you are not taking a lead on public access.

I turn to the subject of species licensing. It would be good to know exactly where you are with the species licensing review: what the headlines are coming out of it, and when we expect the review to be signed off.

Have you assessed the compliance of species licensing with international law and international conventions? I will give you an example of that. It did not get a lot of scrutiny, but an amendment to the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill was passed that effectively allows the recreational hunting of mountain hares through falconry. The Parliament has approved that, but it begs the question whether that is compliant with international law. I am interested about the species licensing that you come under some political pressure to deliver. Who does the assessment, and is it compliant with international law? Is that you or ESS that does that?

Let me ask you a straight question. When you were doing the species licensing review, did you review whether species licences that are currently issued by NatureScot are legally compliant with international law and conventions?

Okay.

I will move on. A key performance analysis in your annual report concerns the condition of protected areas. We know that woodlands are in serious decline. What work are you doing specifically on woodlands and other habitats that are in decline to try to reverse that? We are in quite a desperate state, so what is going to turn the corner on this? What kind of work are you leading to ensure that we are restoring habitats such as woodlands?

What is your assessment of the possibility of halting nature loss by 2030, specifically in relation to woodlands? Are the conditions in place to halt that and to start to reverse the decline? What do you see as the main drivers behind that?

I thought that you had a corporate priority around the public, public access to nature and that side of things. Education and engagement are really important for tackling the nature emergency.