���˿���

On the back of Emma Harper’s question, do you have any idea of how many greyhounds in Scotland will be affected by the bill?

Group 2 is on aggravations. Amendment 1, in the name of Maurice Golden, is grouped with amendments 2 to 5, 20, 6 to 8, 21 and 22.

An environmental court could be a big and very busy body. Since Brexit, there has been talk about whether there should be an environmental court and about the Government’s policy position on that. We are not going to go into the policy position, but it is almost that, within the legislation, the Government might or might not do it at some time in the future. At this point in time, when we are considering legislation as it goes through, would the development of an environmental court within the two bodies that are merging under the bill not impact considerably on your operational capacity? Would there not need to be a long lead-in time to develop the systems and the capacity not just for what would be an add-on but for the significantly heavier workload that an environmental court might bring?

Given that we are touching on the subject, and given how big a change it might be, has the Scottish Government consulted or asked the Scottish Land Court and the Lands Tribunal about taking on environmental court status?

Agenda item 3 is an evidence session with the Scottish Government as part of our consideration of the Greyhound Racing (Offences) (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. I welcome to the meeting Jim Fairlie, the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity, who is joined by, from the Scottish Government, Andrew Voas, who is veterinary head of animal welfare, and Keith White, who is a lawyer. I also welcome Mark Ruskell.

We have allocated approximately 90 minutes for this session. We have quite a few questions to get through, so I ask members and the minister to be succinct in their questions and answers.

I will kick off. We understand that the Scottish Government supports the general principles of the bill, even though the minister told the committee in 2024 that it considered that an outright ban was not necessary, although it thought that there was a case for licensing. What has changed?

Simple questions, simple answers—that is the way we like it. The next question, from Ariane Burgess, might not be quite so straightforward.

Thank you, minister.

I gave away my first question, but it still stands. What has changed? Back in 2024, you stated:

“the Scottish Government is not persuaded of the need to ban greyhound racing in Scotland.”

You were talking about racing on an oval track. You went on to say:

“In particular, we are not convinced that such a ban is a proportionate and fair response to the animal welfare concerns”.

You also cautioned

“against making assumptions about the current situation in Scotland and legislating to ban a sport ... without a sound evidence base for doing so.”

What has changed with regard to your having a sound evidence base for the existence of animal welfare concerns?

You said that there was an inherent risk in everything that we do and that greyhound racing was no different in that respect. You also said:

“no complaints have been made to the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals about the activities at Thornton ... and no enforcement action has been taken”.—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 22 May 2024; c 4.]

What evidence do you have to suggest that the situation has changed, such that there is now an inherent animal welfare issue that has led the Government to support the general principles of the bill?

I am not sure that evidence from the member who introduced the bill is a sound evidence base.

You have commented that Thornton racetrack is inherently different from Greyhound Board of Great Britain tracks. Thornton is an oval track and GBGB tracks are oval tracks. What has changed to suggest that we should now ban racing at Thornton?

The next item on our agenda is an evidence session with the Scottish Land Court on the Crofting and Scottish Land Court Bill. I welcome to the meeting Alison Irving, who is the principal clerk for the Scottish Land Court and the Lands Tribunal for Scotland. Good morning. I note that you do not have to operate your microphone; a gentleman will do that for you. We do not anticipate that the session will take very long, but we have allocated it 30 minutes. Although the Scottish Land Court cannot comment on policy decisions, I hope that we can discuss some of the operational impacts that part 2 of the bill could potentially have.

My first question to you is about the main operational benefits, but also the risks, of merging the Scottish Land Court and the Lands Tribunal for Scotland. In his submission to the committee, Lord Duthie highlighted some operational implications of the bill as it is currently worded. Do you have any additional comments?

So, currently, the bill will not improve the animal welfare of any dogs in Scotland.