³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

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?

You would not introduce a licensing scheme for that, would you? Why would you introduce a licensing scheme for something when you know there is inherent risk?

Okay. Thanks, convener. I will maybe come back in later.

The committee’s stage 1 report went into some detail on the options to put more detail in the bill or requiring what could effectively be called a super-affirmative process, which was originally used for the establishment of the DRS regulations back in 2019. That involved Parliament taking extensive evidence from stakeholders in advance of the regulations being laid and seeking reassurance from the minister about how the regulations would be altered in light of the committee evidence before finally being laid.

I just wonder if, in lodging his amendments for this morning, Mr Simpson had considered what an enhanced parliamentary process might look like. Co-production, whether with industry, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities or individual local authorities, is critical, as these are the folk who will be delivering the schemes in practice. They are the people who will be selling the coffee, taking cups back, administrating charges and so on. They will be setting up the systems for dealing with waste, biodegrading, composting and all of that. If those people and organisations are the experts, surely there is a way to bring co-production into Parliament, allowing for greater scrutiny ahead of something being introduced. To write a scheme into the bill at this point without any of that co-production or scrutiny would perhaps ring alarm bells within industry, whereas an enhanced parliamentary process might be more appropriate. The committee was wrestling with working out where a super-affirmative process might add value to the bill and where it might not. A Scottish statutory instrument process would be adequate.

Bob Doris makes a good case. I do not know to what extent that is already under discussion and whether there is a desire in local authorities and COSLA to move towards something that is more consistent and unified across Scotland or whether there are cases for local authorities to take slightly different approaches. I am not aware of the details of that.

I will certainly listen to what the minister says, and I hope that there will be more discussion ahead of stage 3. If there is some uncertainty about whether that option is being treated seriously within the development of the code of practice, it might be appropriate to put something into legislation.

However, what we have heard in relation to this group of amendments—indeed, in relation to considering amendments over the past couple of days—is calls from members of the committee and people outside the committee for more certainty about how things are being developed, what the state of play is among those who are involved in co-production, and what assurances we can have that certain key things, such as reuse and repair, will not be dropped because they are not in the legislation. That is where the frustration and residual concern are coming from—certainly from me, and from a number of members of the committee.