Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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

Are you saying that, if we give it another couple of years, it will be fixed? Is the HSE telling you, “It’s fine; we’ve got it under control”? The industry does not know what it is meant to be collecting right now.

Okay, but the committee cannot see it.

I am finished, convener. I will let other members come in.

I think that this is a mess. The UK REACH process was set up in 2018, and I do not think that it has ever worked. I appreciate the comments that the cabinet secretary has made. This is a situation that Scotland does not want to find itself in with Brexit.

No, that is fine. I have problems with both of them, but I will start with that one. I have concerns in relation to the role of the HSE. It is acting as both a regulator and a policy maker, which feels a bit like a power grab.

There is certainly a lack of transparency. We do not even have a consultation document for the regulations. I am concerned that decisions are being made without transparency. I do not know what is meant by alignment with the wider UN rules. I do not know whether we are going to end up aligning with the regulatory regimes of other nations, rather than with those of the EU. There are particular concerns about certain classes of hazards, such as children’s toys and endocrine disruptors. There might be other cases where we are effectively falling out of alignment with the EU, which would have serious implications. It would also have implications for trade.

I am concerned. I do not think that we have been presented with the full picture, and the HSE should, at the very least, be in front of the committee to answer questions before we agree to such a far-reaching set of chemicals regulations that could take us further out of alignment with the EU.