 Good morning everybody and welcome to the 12th meeting of the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee in 2022. Before we begin, can I remind those committee members using electronic devices to switch them to silent. Our first item of business today is to decide whether to take item six in private. Our members agreed. Thank you. Our second item of business Weinidogwoman is Oke snapped today on petition PE1758 Ven dane Greyhound Racing in Scotland, breeze that has been lodged by GBRW in behalf of Scotland Against Greyhound Exploitation. A petition was referred to the committee following previous considerations in session 5 by Geoffrey Thomas,畫ers of The Public Petitions Committee and the Environment Climate Change and Land Reform Committee. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to put an end I'm pleased to welcome to the meeting the petitioner, Jill Docherty and Jacqueline Brown from Scotland Against Greyhound Exploitation. Is this the committee's first consideration of this petition? I'd like to invite the petitioner to make an introductory statement. Okay, convener, members of the committee, my name is Jill Docherty and, as the convener has just said, I am the chairperson for the registered charity Scotland Against Greyhound Exploitation. I have my colleague and fellow trustee and founding member Jacqueline Brown with me today, and she'll speak as well if that's okay. You've kindly given a bit of a rundown about the petition already, but we're here to give evidence about PE1758 and Greyhound Racing in Scotland. The petition was first lodged in October 2019, having gathered 13,159 signatures, and that made it the fifth most signed Scottish parliamentary petition in history, which I think speaks to the level of support for this important issue. The convener has mentioned that it was passed to the Eichler Committee, and unfortunately we then suffered some delays due to the Covid pandemic. Its last hearing was in February 2021 at the Eichler Committee, and they pledged to put their concerns around Greyhound Racing in writing to the Animal Welfare Commission at the moment. It is not included in their work plan, and I think that the intention of that letter was to invite them to consider bringing it into their work plan, but we're very disappointed to learn in the last few weeks that that letter was never sent. So we're a year on, and actually there's been no action so far, so that's quite disappointing for us. So we welcome the opportunity to come today and give some evidence and bring it back to the fore. I think it's important we take this opportunity to update the committee on the current landscape of Greyhound Racing in Scotland. There's a great number of submissions under the petition, but you may or may not have had the opportunity to read those. So when we lodged our petition in 2019, there were two tracks in Scotland. One licence track, Shofield and Glasgow, and that's regulated by the Greyhound Board of Great Britain, the GBGB. And one unregulated track, which is Thornton and Fife. Although it has a premises licence from Fife Council, it doesn't operate under any specific welfare regulations whatsoever. It doesn't have a governing body at all. Now, when the pandemic triggered a lockdown in March 2020, both tracks closed, and despite the restrictions permitting Greyhound Racing to resume just a few months later, Shofield has never reopened. So we're left now with one single operating track in Scotland, which is the so-called flapper track Thornton and Fife. And as I've mentioned, this track is completely unregulated, and that leaves the dogs racing in Thornton among the most vulnerable in the UK at the moment. The lack of regulation means that there is no vet present at any of the races, and that would mean that there's no administration of first aid or pain relief to dogs that are injured. There's no vet present to euthanise a dog should it suffer a catastrophic injury such as a broken spine or a broken neck. There's no qualified person to assess where their dogs are in a fit condition to race on the day. No drug testing takes place at Thornton, and that's really greatly concerning for us, because we know that in Shofield, which is now closed, but when it was open, drug testing did occur, albeit in under 2 per cent of races. In those tests, there were 13 positive drug tests in dogs in the period of 2018 to 2019 alone, and shockingly, five of those were for cocaine. We feel that, if that's the evidence that we have at a track that is doing only 2 per cent of testing, it's our belief that the rate of doping will be much higher at Thornton, and it's going completely unchecked. There are no kennel inspections at Thornton to assess conditions that dogs are kept in, and we're both involved in Greyhound rescue, and we have reports from independent charities that Greyhounds are often kept in garden sheds. There are no regulations relating to how they are transported and held at tracks. Part of the work that we do is protesting trackside and raising awareness, and we've seen firsthand dogs arriving in hot cars on summer's days and being held in those hot cars until they're racing. Fundamentally, we cannot ignore the inherent risks of Greyhound racing itself, and those risks are present whether the track is regulated or unregulated, and they cannot be mitigated against with welfare measures or cleverly named initiatives. It is a fact that making six dogs race at speeds in excess of 40 miles an hour counterclockwise around an oval track results in a high rate of collisions and injuries, with the first bend being notorious for causing the most casualties. The track configuration puts a strain on the left foreleg and the right hind leg of the animal, and that results in weakness of the limbs and leads to fractures. Greyhounds are also seen to suffer much more catastrophic injuries through collision with the boards on the outside of the track, collision with the rails on the inside, on the bends and collisions with one another. The GBGB has been forced to publish injury and death statistics for its UK tracks since 2017, and it makes for a really grim reading. In the period of 2017-2020, some 18,345 dogs have been injured on UK tracks, and over 3,000 have lost their lives. Earlier this year, the cross-party group for animal welfare wrote to the GBGB and asked for Scotland-specific figures, so we learned for the first time that in the same period, albeit Shofield closed in March 2020, so for that year there's just three months of data. In the period of three years and three months, some 197 dogs were injured in Glasgow at Shofield, and 15 dogs lost their lives. That is despite Shofield only operating one race night per week for the majority of that period, where other GBGB tracks are racing seven days a week. We also know that 200 dogs died on GBGB tracks in 2020, and that was despite the industry being closed for some time during the first lockdown. The percentage rate of track deaths is the same now as it was four years ago, despite some of the initiatives that the GBGB have put in place. That demonstrates that the risk can only be eliminated by banning the industry itself, because no amount of welfare regulation will change the danger of the track itself. Based on this evidence, we would argue that injuries and deaths are likely to be occurring at a similar, if not a higher rate at Thornton, but there is no requirement for them to record nor publish that information, so we are working blind and we will never know. It is not just physical harm that Greyhounds suffer, though. We have focused on the figures from GBGB, and physical injuries are clear to see, but psychological damage is commonplace too with those dogs. Racing Greyhounds are typically born in kennels and they are kept in kennels for years, sometimes in their entire life. They are only ever brought out for brief exercising to travel to and from the track. Racing dogs are deprived of natural behaviours such as the exploration of the natural environment, socialisation with other dogs and the experience of a loving home. With no opportunity as a young dog to interact as a pack animal, Greyhounds often reach rescues with deep psychological issues, presenting as fearful and shut down or worse, highly reactive to any new stimuli, and that can make them difficult to be home. If anyone has met a rescued Greyhound and there are many outside today that you might have had the pleasure of meeting, you will know how regal they are. Once upon a time, before racing was invented in the 1920s, they could only be owned by royalty and it's a sad state of affairs that we've come to this point today. Greyhounds make fantastic family pets. They're gentle, they're fun, they're sweet-natured. They're generally quiet dogs and don't bark a lot. They look big but they curl up small and they are very addictive. I've volunteered with a Greyhound rescue charity for some years way before Sage came about and I've seen hundreds of Greyhounds come and go in that time. So I speak from personal experience. The worst cases aren't the broken legs, they aren't the amputated limbs, they aren't the extreme gum disease that requires all their teeth to be removed. The worst cases I've seen are the dogs that have nothing behind their eyes, they're shut down, they're lost, they're just not present, they have such deep psychological trauma that it takes years to bring them back to be in a dog and some don't have that long. I've seen dogs up to the age of 9 and 10 come out of racing kennels. Again, very seldom seen in a lighted day. They don't have time to learn how to be a pet in a family home. We do try with them and seen them figure it out and figure out how to live in a house. It's as heartbreaking as it is heartwarming. At the Eclear Committee on the 10th of December 2019, Mike Flynn from the SSPC acknowledged that kennels are no place for dogs to be raised. He was speaking in the context of animal welfare. He described the state of the art kennels and sensory gardens built by the SSPC to give the dogs the best experience possible while the long legal cases are being fought. Graeons don't have such a luxury of comfortable dwellings. A garden shed with no light in our heat doesn't quite compare and, as Jill mentioned, that's not the worst conditions that we're aware of. So why a ban and why now? And why do we think that only a ban will be sufficient? Well, we're aware that a similar petition was heard at Westminster in 28 March this year. And the issues raised there are the same as the issues raised here, but Scotland's situation is vastly different from south of the border. As a devolved power, we've got the opportunity to lead the way in animal welfare reform and we believe that now is the time to do it. Thornton, as Jill has mentioned, is the only track operating in Scotland at the moment and it has absolutely no welfare regulations in place. The dogs there are at severe risk of having very poor quality of life, pain, suffering, injury, abandonment and death. There's no eyes on them at all, but it's more than that. As we've heard, the GBGB admit that tens of thousands of Graeons have been injured and killed on the tracks throughout the years, despite the regulations currently in place. There have been numerous cases of Graeons being drugged at GBGB tracks. Again, we know this by the GBGB's own admission, despite the regulations in place. We know that racing Graeons offer suffer, neglect and abuse. The GBGB have published these cases, so it's by their own admission again, and that is despite the regulations currently in place. We know all of this went on at Shofield in Glasgow. GBGB have admitted it, yet there were no criminal proceedings, any of the dope and any of the abuse cases. There's been no action. That leads us to conclude that regulation does not work and we believe that a ban on shrine and law will be the only way to protect these dogs. The timing is right at the moment. With just one track left, we believe that the economic impact is going to be minimal of bringing in a ban. There won't be many jobs lost. That's an argument that we've had before for keeping racing open. That's not an argument anymore. There are fewer dogs racing at the moment in Scotland, so rehoming them is going to be easier at this point in time. As you'll be aware, the rescue centres are all full of lockdown puppies at the moment. It's really difficult. If we were to act now, we would be able to rehome the dogs racing in Scotland with no bother. At the time that we take to make changes to the existing Animal Health and Welfare Act or to introduce a new bill, more and more greyhounds are going to be injured and killed. We know that for a fact. To expedite the process, given the delays already incurred since the petition was first submitted in 2019, we're calling for a full Government debate and a vote in the chamber and we respectively urge parties to join with the Scottish Greens and compel their members to vote in favour of a ban. To conclude, I just want to read from the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2000 guidance that states that unnecessary suffering can be caused in one of two ways, either by taking action which causes unnecessary suffering or by failing to take steps to prevent unnecessary suffering. Do we, Sage, believe that any suffering caused to greyhounds through a race is unnecessary? Thank you very much for that very detailed presentation. I'm also pleased to welcome Mark Ruskell. Mark Ruskell was a previous member of the clear. I'd like to welcome to the meeting and you're here to support the petition and I'd ask you to say a few words, Mark. Thanks very much, convener. You'll be well aware of the discussions in this petition in the previous committee. I wanted to give this committee just a little bit of context to you. The Animal Welfare Act was passed in this Parliament back in 2006. The act does place a duty of care on all those people who keep animals or pet owners to protect those animals from suffering, injury and disease. I was on that committee in session 2 when it was going through and we were scrutinising the bill. The issue of racing greyhounds was discussed very briefly, but it was discussed. The consensus on the committee at the time was that the provisions within the bill that we were examining should have been enough to drive welfare improvements across society and in particular in relation to greyhounds as well. That was the belief back then, but looking at where we're at now, a decade and a half later, the evidence shows that we're not seeing that improvement with racing greyhounds. It's clear that instead of them being protected from suffering and injury, they're increasingly being subjected to suffering and injury. The figures that the petitioners highlight really demonstrate that, the increased numbers of deaths, the increased number of injuries. That's at a time when we've seen increased scrutiny of the industry as well. To be fair to the industry, they have attempted to reform. They've put in place what they call a greyhound commitment as an attempt to try and increase welfare standards, but all of this seems to have completely failed. The figures, the injuries, the suffering are going in the wrong direction. I support this petition because I genuinely think that this is an industry that is really beyond reform. I think that it comes back to the inherent risks in greyhound racing that the petitioners outlined. We're talking about dogs going around a track at 40 miles an hour, the inherent risks in terms of collisions between dogs, and the track infrastructure is there. It raises not just serious welfare questions about how we treat and deal with the injuries that arise from greyhounds racing, but also major ethical considerations about why we're putting dogs into that situation in the first place, knowing full well that they're going to have an increased risk of injury and death. It's a major ethical consideration as well as a welfare one and I think that on that basis, convener, it does remind me of some of the considerations that we had in the last session about the Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses Bill because there are parallels here. We're in a situation where there is next to no industry, greyhound industry in Scotland, just as there was with the circus industry that was using Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses. It appears that a ban would result in virtually no economic impact in Scotland. We're also seeing widespread gathering support for a ban on greyhound racing, and I think very significantly last week the SSPCA came out in favour of a ban, and I think that was very welcome. I'm aware that the SSPCA has been very patient with this industry over a long period of time and has worked closely with them, so for them to come to that conclusion that a ban should be put in place is significant. In terms of the next steps that the committee may consider, I mean clearly writing to the Animal Welfare Commission is aggressively overdue and I think should be done, but I'm also aware that the Animal Welfare Commission has got a very busy work programme at the moment. I think the time for scrutiny is now. We're seeing scrutiny in the Welsh Centre, we're seeing scrutiny at Westminster on this issue. I think it's time for this Parliament to take a lead as well and this session this morning is very welcome. I think that if more evidence was taken, particularly oral evidence, that might, if I could suggest, perhaps provide a better evidence base to then write to the Scottish Government and actually get a clear position, because I think the Government is referring back to the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which, as I think we've heard today, is not working for greyhounds, it's not driving the welfare improvements that we really need to see. Thank you, convener. Thank you, Mark. We have two questions from members now. I'm going to kick off. My first question is going to be to you, Mark, but I'd like Jill to come in the back of it. You wrote to Mary Gougeon back in March of this year, and the cabinet secretary suggested that the provisions within the Animal Health and Welfare Scotland Act 2006 were adequate. In a position where the laws are actually in place but they're just not being enforced or there's not the capacity for the appropriate body to intervene and act, where is it going wrong? Have you any idea why the Government thinks it's fit for purpose, but you're suggesting. That would be a service for the Government to get evidence from the Parliamentary Committee that's doing a deep dive into this issue and to really unpack what those issues are. I think that that would help to inform the view of the Government on this. I do come back to the point that I made, though, that I think that there are inherent risks here in putting dogs around a track at 40 miles an hour with a high collision risk. I think that it's very difficult, if not impossible, to protect, to quote the act again, to protect animals from suffering and injury in that situation. I think that the petitioners may have thoughts as to how some of the enforcement issues have been very difficult for the SSPCA and others to follow up on in terms of the strict legal provisions within the act and the issues around doping and clear-cut abuses of animal welfare. Gell, do you think that there's a reluctance to ensure that the act, that the law is followed or that there's difficulties, there's a lack of capacity? Why are we seeing it working? I would say that there's a purposeful obstruction of achieving that from the industry. Unfortunately, what I would like to talk about is what happens at Thornton, but we are completely blind there because there is no regulatory body. I can't sit here and tell you why Thornton is failing because we have no idea how many dogs are dopes, injured, killed. We also don't have any traceability of those dogs, so dogs racing on registered tracks are traced through their ear tattoos and it's again difficult and the GBGB is quite obstructive in the way that they present their information, but you could theoretically find that this dog has these ear marks. Where is that dog now? Was it injured? Was it killed? There's none of that at Thornton. All I can speak to is what we know from GBGB tracks, albeit that we no longer have one. The GBGB is obviously entrusted to manage their own affairs in the house. As we've mentioned, the belief at the moment of the Government seems to be that they're doing an adequate job. If a dog, let's look at one of those instances where a dog is found to have been drugged by cocaine, and that's done to try and influence the outcome of the race and make more money, which is what this industry comes down to. It's money and it's a bit of entertainment for some people on a Saturday night. Let's say that a dog is tested positive for cocaine today. We don't learn about that until three or four, maybe five months later, it's published at the very back of an online journal very deep within the GBGB website. We scour those journals every week when they come out, and we'll learn, back five months ago, this trainer drugged this dog. That has not been reported to the SSPCA or to Police Scotland, because whenever we see those coming up in the journals, we phone the police and we report it to the police in the SSPCA, and they are not aware of those issues. Then it's five months on, so the dog is no longer there. Maybe the trainer has moved to a different track, there is no evidence to collect any more, so the GBGB doesn't work with the authorities to ensure that there are prosecutions made, which my colleague said explained to you, there have been no prosecutions because they don't work with the SSPCA and they don't work with the police. Even when they publish their injury and death statistics, they don't break it down by track, so you can't ascertain which of the dangerous tracks. There is a purposeful effort to obstruct our ability to scrutinise the industry from the outside. It's worth mentioning that all the information that we have is from the GBGB itself, so it's not an independent body that looks at the number of injuries, death, doping, all of these things. We're working on trust, but personally I have no trust because of the way in which they do these things to ensure that the scrutiny is not there. That's exactly why the SSPCA has changed their decades-long held stamps and they're saying, we just need to ban it because we can't get in, we can't investigate, we can't make prosecutions. It's no use us learning that five months ago a dog was drugged with cocaine and had a heart attack because it's not contemporaneous information and there's no evidence to collect. I think that's why they've said enough is enough. Alasdair Allan to follow up with Jim Fairlie. Thank you, convener. You've mentioned some of the limitations of the GBGB regulation that there is, but obviously the one track that we have is unregulated just now, so I'm just interested to know what you have been able to do as an organisation to find out why Fife is licensing an unregulated track. I appreciate that there may be a legal side to this that I know nothing about in terms of the powers that Fife Council doesn't have. I'm just curious to know what contact you've had with Fife Council about these issues. We submitted a freedom of information request earlier this year asking specifically about the conditions that dogs were kept in as well as various other questions. We've referred to it in our submission that we put in recently. There is no requirement for them to be licensed. We actually do not understand how Thornton can operate under the current legislation and be said to be complying with it because to us it doesn't make sense. Basically they have a premises licence and I believe that, does that enable them to sell alcohol? They haven't had any health and safety inspections for over a decade. Basically nobody has eyes on them. I suppose our concern is that the Thornton stadium is open to the public. They're serving food, they're serving drinks, they're promoting their stadium, they're publicising it at the moment trying to draw more people in, but there's no requirement for any of these checks under current legislation or regulations and that's a real concern. As to how that's come about, I can't answer. I'll operate the mic. Thanks, convener. Jacqueline, I think you already answered this earlier on, but there's a couple of technical things I want to ask. You say there's no vets attendants at Thornton and you went through a list of things that would be checked at a regulated track. Does that always happen at a regulated track? Is there a complete vet check before you go to a race? What we know is that legally on a GBGV track there must be a vet present. Whether there are hands-on checking the animals, I don't know. What tends to happen is that you can only attract a vet that is a pro-racing vet because a veterinarian that feels that greyhound racing is cruel wouldn't work at a track. It's someone who's got a vested interest in the industry, but a vet has to be present. We assume that any vet with a conscience would be checking to make sure that dogs are fit and things like that. I think the reason that we hark back to what the situation is with those registered tracks in terms of a vet being present is to demonstrate that we're trying to guard against the Government wanting to put in similar legislation for flapper tracks because what we're demonstrating here is even with that. What's a flapper track? Apologies, that's what is the term for these unregulated tracks. There's only one in Scotland, one in England and one in Wales. As Jacqueline said, it's kind of a curiosity to us that it has happened. There have been historically tens and tens of flapper tracks where you don't need to be a professional greyhound trainer. You can just put your greyhound in the back of your car and tip up and race. Apologies, a flapper track is what Thornton is where there's no regulation in place so they're working with no kind of scrutiny. Okay. I think you answered this already. If somebody turns up with a dog that is for one reason or another unfit to race or it's found to be doped or some other thing that you highlighted earlier on, are you saying that there is no consequence to the person who's turned up with that dog for having done it? So it's not as though they're banned from that track. It's not as though they're not allowed to race again. There's no legislation in place that would stop them from racing as a result of a misdemeanor. On a flapper track? Absolutely not. What about the regular track? Bear in mind, we don't have one of those anymore but I'll answer the question. On a registered track, we are leaving it to the GBGB to self-regulate in-house. It's for them to decide they'll have a hearing and they'll decide what the fate is of that trainer. Yes, in a small number of cases, the trainer will be suspended or fined or banned. We find that that's quite rare. But what tends to happen is in these hearings, for example, there was one hearing that was written up four months later on, the trainer said that the Greyhound must have picked up the licked cocaine off of the back of the van and he was carrying a friend previously that might have had cocaine on his person. The GBGB has a choice to accept that evidence. If the GBGB wanted to demonstrate that they were upholding the Animal Health and Welfare Act, they would immediately get that positive for cocaine. Pick up the phone and phone the SSPC in Police Scotland and make it a criminal matter because it is. That would give them the power to come in and investigate it properly. We're leaving it to the industry to self-regulate and plainly it's not working if we're seeing these things happening. One very brief observation. If you've got a vet who is pro-racing, a vet who is not pro-racing would be a far better vet to be at a Greyhound track so that they're actually looking for these problems. One very final thing yourself, Jacqueline, you're surely not saying that it's only Royals that should be keeping Greyhounds. Not these days, no, no. It does give a good indication as to how Greyhounds were viewed in the past, certainly, and it is quite sad that we've got to this point. Mercedes Vidalba. Thank you. Good morning. Thanks very much for coming to speak to us today. Jill, you explained that the Thornton track is unregulated, but it is licensed by Five Council. I just had a follow-up from Alice's question. I'm assuming that if Five Council were to revoke that license, then that would mean that the track would have to close. I was wondering if your organisation has written to Five Council to request that they revoke the license or that they attach a condition to the license requiring the track to be regulated and if you've done that and if you've had any response from them to that. I can answer that just on the back of the FOI. Basically, Five Council came back telling us that it's the SSPCA's responsibility for the safety of the dogs at Thornton. SSPCA, as far as we're aware, haven't been anywhere near it, but it feels like there's a bit of game playing, to be honest, because when we ask Five Council, it's like, nothing to do with us, that the SSPCA aren't involved, GBGBs know where, and that's why we keep coming back to saying nobody has eyes on these dogs at the moment. Everyone's shunning responsibility and saying it's someone else's responsibility, but I'll repeat the point that Jill has made. Ultimately, regulation doesn't work. Self-regulation can't work. It's in the industry's interests to present the best information possible. Given some of the practices we know to go on in the industry, we struggle to trust the figures that they give us, and we suspect injuries and deaths are far higher. If you look at any media over the last decade, you'll find countless stories being published about the mass graves of greyhound bodies, greyhounds having their ears cut off and being discarded so they can't be identified. It's rife, basically, throughout the country, and it's shocking that Five Council has no place in that neither, it seems, does the SSPCA? I'm not sure, Mark, if you wanted to come back. I don't know if I'm allowed to ask you questions. Everybody else is. Yes, I think that the FOIs that have come back just show the limits of what you can do through premises licensing and alcohol licensing. Those licensing frameworks are set by legislation that is very specific to the issues that need to be dealt with. I think that the challenges of Five Council, even if it wanted to, trying to regulate a greyhound racing track for all of the concerns and issues that are being raised here today, using another form of licensing is just a contortion. It makes it very, very difficult for Five Council to be able to do that, which is the gap that the petitioners are raising, that we just don't have the right tools, through the Animal Welfare Act, through premises licensing, in order to ensure the safety of animals. Thanks, that's helpful. And then, Richard Hamilton, please. Thanks, convener. I've got a few questions. Mark, you said in your statement that there's virtually no industry in Scotland. I read in the papers that, for example, greyhounds were initially raised in Ireland, I believe. So, maybe you could expand on that. I guess I'm going to get a picture that it's a cross-border industry and dogs come from elsewhere to race at Thornton, but if you could explain that bit more. It might better actually for Jill to expand on that. So, once again, I can tell you what I know from a register track because we have some limited information. So, we know from your tattoos that around 80%, not more of the greyhounds racing in Scotland and the rest of the UK come from Ireland. It is bigger business in Ireland and a lot of the breeding happens in Ireland, although not exclusively. So, yes, the flow of dogs does come from Ireland to race in Scotland. We don't know if that is the case in Thornton, but it is the case everywhere else. But there's no traceability of those dogs. We have no idea which dogs are racing. We also don't know how frequently they're being raced. So, there are some limited rules about not overracing dogs if it's on a GBGB track and we check the rear tattoos. So, we know how many times they're racing, albeit frequently they breach their own rules on that. Dogs could be raced at Thornton on a Saturday and then taken across the border to Newcastle the next day and raced and raced. Yes, there is some feed of dogs from Ireland. There's very little breeding that we're aware of in Scotland at all. I think that if you lift the last tiny bit of greyhound racing that we have in Scotland out of the equation, the industry is kind of folded in on itself already and we are in the prime position to just make it a banned industry so that it doesn't come back, but it's almost gone already. Thanks for that. You, in your overview opening statement, as Jim Fairlie had kind of asked about, the fact that there were no vets at Thornton and you talked about euthanasia. I just wondered how does euthanasia happen at Thornton? I mean, I know you maybe not know, but from others... I'm looking blind, but... So, if a dog was to break its spine on a GBGB track, the vet is there, they will have euthanasol, which is the injectable that would humanely put a dog to sleep. It's worth noting that they also must have a freezer to store dead dogs, so they know that they're going to kill dogs with this industry and they have to have a freezer there. However, if there was a vet there and a dog has an unlivable injury like a fractured spine, then the vet would humanely put them to sleep. I'm not advocating that that's a positive, of course. If your dog breaks its spine in Thornton, are you piling that dog into the back of your hot car and trying to find a vet at 7pm on a Saturday night to euthanise that dog? Are you trying to find somewhere to give it some pain relief in the meantime? Or, as we have anecdotal evidence of, are you doing something else to end that dog's life that is not human because you have no other tools available? Thank you for that. Bear with me, I've got a few more questions. You've kind of said this, but I just want to hear a bit more on this. The Scottish Government has voiced a commitment to ensure that sentience is taken into consideration in animal welfare. What do you think needs to change in order for greyhands to be afforded the level of protection they deserve as sentient beings? I don't think there's ever been an argument about the sentience of dogs. I think that there were other species where there had been an argument about sentience. I think that we all understand that dogs are sentient beings and so many of us have them curled up on the couch beside us. It's just a blind spot that a very, very small minority have where the seed of greyhands is lesser. We know of people who have their labrador in the house on the couch and their greyhound in the shed in the garden because it's a racing commodity and your labrador is your pet. For me, I don't think that the wider population has a grey area about the sentience of these dogs or their value. I think that it's only this tiny, tiny minority that still participates in greyhound racing. I don't know if you've... No, I think that's covered it. We're looking for equality for greyhounds, I guess, to be treated alongside all the other animals that are covered by the current legislation because, with what we see happening on the tracks, we would argue that the current legislation is not working because, if it was working, there wouldn't be injuries and deaths and we don't think that those injuries and deaths are acceptable. That's the bottom line. We can argue about that and we can talk for days on this subject as I'm sure you can imagine. The bottom line is that it just doesn't make sense that the current animal welfare provision does not protect greyhounds as sentient animals. Thank you for that, Jacqueline. I'm going to pick up on something that you said. You said in your opening statement that now is the time to act for various reasons. I wonder what kind of timescale is now in your mind in terms of this opportunity because of Covid and because of Shawfield's closing. I'm not too familiar with parliamentary processes, so putting a timescale on it for me is a bit difficult, but I would be looking for some action to happen as soon as possible because we are concerned that Thurton is trying to attract numbers back and that could spur further greyhounds being brought into the country or bred, as Jill said. We're not aware of any breeders at the moment in Scotland, but I guess we're kind of on a precipice at the moment and we can go one way or the other. There is a potential for Thurton to start building their numbers again, which might ultimately make it more difficult to bring about a ban. There will also be socioeconomic impact if Thurton is allowed to build up again, so now is the perfect time because there aren't those issues to consider to any big scale, basically. As we said, and I think the crux of our presentation is that the regulation doesn't work, so why would we bring in regulations to Thurton if the current regulations don't work? If I can say one thing in response to that, you're talking about timescales and you're absolutely right. We are not parliamentarians, so we don't know what the processes are, but bear in mind that this petition was brought in 2019 and we're sitting in 2022. Nothing has happened. I'm concerned that some of the measures that might be suggested would be to write a letter or to ask somebody to consider adding it into a work plan. The time that it would take to gather evidence, consultations, all of those things, that could be another couple of years and we've spoken about how many extra deaths injuries that would result in. I think for us, when we spoke to Christine Grahame at the cross-party group for animal welfare, she was very pleased that we'd gone down the route of a public petition because the purpose of public petitions is to give the public an opportunity to bring to the Government an issue that doesn't fit somewhere else within the plans. It's the fifth most signed petition, so there's a lot of support here for this. We feel that we've waited so long. Obviously, some of the delays have been due to Covid, but one year ago a letter was supposed to be written to the Animal Welfare Commission and it didn't happen, so that wasn't Covid related. It just wasn't, maybe it was forgotten or not taken seriously enough, but we feel that actually bills, changes to the act, are not fast enough. We would really like to see it debated in the full Government in the chamber and go to vote and allow us to use that public petition provision which should be there for the public to bring an important issue to the fore without having to wait four years for a bill. Sorry to cover ground that's already been covered, but it's really disappointing to hear from the evidence that the Animal Health and Welfare Scotland Act is failing Greyhounds. I just want to square something here, because Jacqueline, in your presentation, you said that no amount of welfare legislation will improve that situation, but Jacqueline, you've slightly contradicted yourself by saying that if current legislation was improved and Greyhounds were treated equally to other racing animals that we could see an improvement, but then contradicted that in the next question to Ariane. I just wondered, what are we looking at here as a committee? We have to be, I suppose, clear, because in answer to Mark Ruskell's question to the Cabinet Secretary, she referred to the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission and their attitude is to look at licence tracks and unlicence tracks and to understand how regulation can improve the rate of animal injuries. We've got to look from a ban, which is what the Green Party are after. We've got to look at what the Scottish ministers are saying, which they're referring to the Animal Welfare Commission. What do you think, other than two very different routes, what the best way our committee can look at this is, is it looking at the deficiencies of the Animal Welfare, Health and Welfare Scotland Act, or is it to look at the merits of a complete ban? I mean, it is definitely to look at the merits of a ban. Jacqueline wasn't saying that greyhounds should be treated equally to other racing animals, as you said. We were meaning dogs, other dogs. There are no other dogs put in that position other than greyhounds in this country. So, no, I think that the point we're trying to make when we're presenting to you all the data from the track that is regulated, is that if the argument was, well, let's bring regulation to Thornton, are we saying then that we're happy for there to be 18,000 injuries and 3,000 deaths? We'll bring Thornton into the fold because we're happy with that level of abuse and injury, death, doping. We're not. We don't feel that that's an acceptable position. So, yeah, we're not looking for... I guess I understand what you're saying, you know, as the government might look for a middle ground here, but we're trying to explain to you that there isn't a middle ground that would advocate properly for the greyhounds because arguably, then, the middle ground would be to make Thornton become a regulated track. But will that be self-regulation again? Will we be in a position where they don't actually co-operate with the SPCA, they don't co-operate with Police Scotland, they don't publish any of their information until months down the line where the evidence has been lost? And would we be putting in place the similar level of welfare regulations that GBGB has and say, okay, we're happy now with the injuries and the deaths and the doping, because at least we can say we've got a regulatory body? And it's not just the greens that are supporting the ban, as you mentioned. I think it's incredibly significant that the SPCA are saying, ban it. How can we say, let's allow it to carry on, when the SSPC is the body who has the statutory authority to investigate and prosecute the breaches of the animal health and welfare act? And they're saying, but we can't do it because we're not getting in, we're not protecting the dogs, we feel you should ban it. I don't know where we go from there if we allow it to proceed because the SSPC are saying it's not effective. Just to add to that, on the Animal Welfare Commission in Scotland, do you think that they are going far enough with what they're proposing with a report? Because they say that GBGB only covers licence tracks to address issues with unlicensed tracks, also where the regulation is effective in, for example, reducing fatalities? Now, if we're stuck at this point, it is our job as a committee to take further steps for them to actually look at this in greater detail because if they're looking at that through that narrow lens, surely this isn't going to square what your petition is about. Yes, it's not, it's absolutely isn't. As far as I'm aware, it's not even on their work plan to do this within the current setting. I suppose I'm just kind of banging the same drum, but it comes down to whether the Government is happy to accept a level of injuries, deaths, drugging of dogs. I think that it just doesn't sit well with us and I think that any measure short of a ban is basically saying we're happy to accept this level. But if the SSPC is saying we can't provide the protection, then it's kind of a moot point to me. I don't understand how we would let it continue. Members, in one summer, we are running over time, so can I ask you to keep your final questions as brief as possible? I'm sure that this will not be the last time we're in front of the committee, but be at risk for a short run and then Karen, Adam. Thanks, convener, and thanks, Jill and Jacqueline, for your evidence this morning. It's been quite enlightening. If there is a ban that comes into place, do you think that there's a danger of the sport going underground and therefore it being more difficult? You could argue that it's underground already, given that we don't know anything about what's going on at Thornton. I would suggest that that is a possibility, I suppose, but if there's sufficient legislation in place to tackle any tracks that do pop-up, then hopefully they would be dealt with. Ground tracks are quite large operations, they're difficult to hide, so I think that might limit any underground operations that we see in the future. That's always a possibility, but the point is that at the moment those tracks could open up and there's nothing to stop them. A ban would certainly prevent that. Thank you. Karen Adam. Thank you, convener, and good morning, everyone, and thank you so much for your evidence thus far. I'd like to touch upon, Jill, you spoke about the petition gaining quite a lot of traction, and you've also spoke about, did I hear correctly that you go trackside sometimes? Could you give us some kind of understanding of what you feel from your point of view of what public opinion is in regards to Greyhound racing? There's only one track active in Scotland. What is the public opinion out there? Obviously, I mentioned the number of signatures, so we know that the public opinion in terms of how many back this petition is high, but a big part of what SAGE has done for the last three and a half years is protest every single Saturday at Shawfield stadium, and we have also done some protests at Thornton as well. We take a counter and we see how many people are going in to the tracks. In Scotland, unlike in England, we don't televise our racing, so it doesn't go to bookmakers' televisions or anything like that, so the only people that are watching and backing on the racing are the people that walk through the door. Before the pandemic, we were at Shawfield on a Saturday night and would frequently get less than 100 people. It has a capacity of 4,000. There used to be 30 tracks in Scotland. There is really just the tiniest minority of people that are still invested, and there are people that were probably racing Greyhounds 30, 40 years ago. That's the demographic that we see going in. In terms of support for the ban, we feel it's high. In terms of footfall at the tracks, it's tiny, and we know that because we've been counting it for the last three and a half years. When we've done protests at Thornton, you're lucky if there's 30 people. I'm guessing, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, that a lot of your work has raised awareness as well. How do you have any anecdotal evidence of talking to people and raising awareness of this? Do you feel that there is enough awareness? Do you feel that people going to the Greyhound tracks are aware of what is going on? We have lots of anecdotal stories of that kind of thing. We have had people who speak to people outside Sheffield who have turned around and walked away from the track rather than going because they've been so disturbed by what we have told them. We try not to be too emotional in our argument. We try to be fact-based, evidence-based. We show people the evidence and we let them make their own mind up. We've never been forceful with any of our opinions and views. It's simply educational. We have seen a number of people leave, walk out and not be able to go in. We've had staff members from Sheffield stand and speak to us at length about how much they hate working there, but it's a job and they have to do it. We know the public supports out there. Through all the demonstrations we've done, we've done city centre Glasgow protests and we have had a massive amount of support. We take the dogs to these. We meet the dogs, we let them engage with them. A lot of people have never been up close to a greyhound and they seem surprised to find that it's actually just a dog because they're not treated as dogs. We believe that the public support is behind us. In 2017 we started the protests at Sheffield. In five years we saw the numbers going from probably a couple of thousand going in. We started counting it. The numbers going in initially was about 300. Over that year the numbers came down down down down to less than 100 people attending the races. The people that are attending or were attending there were some concerns there in itself because we often saw people going in with babies and buggies, along with crowds of drunk men on stag parties. So there was a whole mix of what we considered inappropriate behaviour in and around that stadium. As far as public support goes, we do believe that we've got that on our side. To close, we've got one very short supplementary. I'm sorry, we're running out of time. Alasdair. Thanks. You indicated that the interest in Scotland, to use the word sport, seems to be very limited. I'm just curious to know whether the gambling industry was driving the defence of greyhound racing. Is that the gambling industry in Scotland? Are people in Ireland betting on this? Where does the incentive come from to keep going? Racing in Scotland is not... You may or may not know about bags racing, so bags racing is where races go on behind closed doors and are televised so you could sit in a bookmaker's all day and just watch dogs go round and bet. We don't have bags racing in Scotland, so people from Ireland can't bet on what's happening in Thornton or Shawfield, albeit it's now closed. No, the only people that are betting are the people that walk in. As I say, in Thornton it is a... Jack explained that the track is large so it couldn't be hidden, but it's a small operation. There's 30 or 40 people going in, some of them are children and partners and things like that. There is no gambling industry underpinning this now, whatsoever, even when Shawfield was open. 100 people placing, some not placing a bet. A lot of people would come on stagdoos, birthday parties, retirements, that kind of thing and say to us, oh, I won't be betting, I'm just here because it's shuggy's 60th. So there is no big business here whatsoever and that again ties into why now is the time because there is no industry. It's just the interests of a couple of people that like to abuse their dogs. Thank you. Jim has got a very shocked additional. If you're saying there are so few people turning up, you don't have an online betting system. Where's the financial incentive for this to continue? If regulations were brought in properly, surely the financial side of it would make it an irrelevant pastime to do anyway? I don't think there is a financial incentive now with the industry the way it is here. For example, I think if you were to force Thornton to employ a vet, they wouldn't be able to afford that. Finances aren't what's driving this. It's this age-old argument of obrit's tradition. I've greyhound racings in my blood, my father raised greyhounds, but that's a really weak argument to allow abuse to perpetuate. Thank you very much. I'm glad that we got the gambling comments on record because I was going to ask whether the Gambling Commission did have a remit within this, but it would appear that we were very limited. I want to thank you very much. I know the time constraints. We could have asked you a lot more questions, but the evidence you provided has been very helpful. The paper in front of us sets out a number of suggestions for our next steps. I'm absolutely aware that the letter to the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission wasn't sent. That's regrettable. It was certainly something that, when we came to this commission, we thought that response would be available to us. Members, I think that we absolutely still need to write to the Animal Welfare Commission to ask for further information on its views of the welfare of greyhounds in Scotland and what consideration it's given to include and prioritise the issue within its work programme. I think that we need to do that. We've agreed. I think that we can also write to Thornton Greyhound track to ask for information about how it protects the welfare of greyhound racing at its track. In addition, and I know that you've already said that we can write letters and we could be here in four years' time, I think that it's also important that we write to the Scottish Government seeking a position statement on the regulation of greyhound racing, given that it appears to be provided for in the 2006 act. Mark Ruskell has already raised that. It appears in provision part two of the 2006 act to all people who are responsible for animals, including breeders, trainers and owners of racing greyhounds. I think that we could certainly ask the Scottish Government for an updated position on that. Is there any other suggestions that we can do at this stage, Mercedes? Could we write to Fife Council and ask them, I don't know if we can ask them to attach conditions to the licensing or to ask them to explore it or look into it. I'm not sure how it works, but it seems that if a licence is being granted to a track that's unregulated, there's scope there to add a condition to it. I think that we can certainly seek further information about the licensing of the track and what their involvement and the situation is with that. I should have first asked whether members are content to continue the petition. I presume that I was very presumptuous in assuming that in the case, so we're content to progress the petition. Alasdair Allan. As we continue to look at this, it would be useful to get an indication from the SSPCA as to why they've changed their stance. I think that their view on that would be helpful as we continue to look at this. Rachael Hamilton. I would like to ask Police Scotland why it's so difficult to bring forward criminal prosecutions, disqualifications and other such provisions that are set out within the act itself. I'd also like to know from the Gambling Commission if they have a statutory levy that supports the welfare aspect of this industry. I do think that we ought to hear the evidence that we've heard from GBGB. Absolutely, we do need to ask some questions of GBGB. I think that at this point we need to be clear that we're just trying to get a foundation, we're trying to get around a picture of what the situation is. Once we have that information, particularly from the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, we're in a better position to decide what the next step is and what the approach to this would be, and that might be to call for further written evidence or it may be to call for oral evidence, like we've heard today, but from a wider range of stakeholders. Any other? I'm afraid it's just members at this point, I'm apologies. Rachael Hamilton. I'm just responding to Jill's point, but I think it's important that we do get that picture as a committee because we are starting from a scratch, I suppose, but the other thing that I noted in the act is that the Scottish ministers set the precedent for veterinary inspections on tracts as well. I'd like to hear from the veterinary industry. I mean, I know this is going down the line, convener, because we're opening up that as we develop this, but I think it's really important that we get all those aspects in view from the veterinary world as well. We've got to be careful not to do as it's opened up to two wider range of stakeholders, but I think the stakeholders that we've mentioned already are certainly key to this. We've got animal welfare, veterinary concerns, police, the greyhound industry themselves, Fife Council and the Animal Welfare Commission. I think that's certainly some of the most fundamental stakeholders in this argument. If we get the responses back, we can certainly take the decision on how we take it forward. Can I assure the petitioners and those who are watching online that this is not kicking into the long grass? We absolutely appreciate where we're a year behind where we should be. I'm sure I speak for the committee when we are absolutely concerned about animal welfare and we strive for the highest animal welfare condition, so this is not something that we're going to kick into the long grass. However, there are timescales that we need to work to, and the timescale is probably going to be very much about the response of the Animal Welfare Commission. What we're being asked to do is whether we continue with the petition and taking stakeholder evidence across the... Does that turn it into an inquiry? There's an aft laddie question as a new parliamentarian. Does this turn this into an inquiry rather than just a continuation of the petition? Well, I think one of the decisions that we had to take today was whether we closed the petition or whether we continued looking into it. The next step, I think, we've all agreed to do is to write to the main stakeholders to get some more information back and then we'll decide whether we do a full inquiry, a report, ask for further information for the Scottish Government or so, and that's a decision that we can take after we get the initial responses from our... the letters that we're going to write. For further comments. Okay, thank you very much. We're now going to suspend briefly Attilaio for a change over in witnesses. Thank you. We'll really resume at 11.10. Thank you. Our third item of business today is consideration of the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board amendment order 2022 draft. This instrument is subject to the affirmative procedure and our fair members to paper 2 of their paper pack, which is on page 10. It's worth flagging up that we're considering a UK SI, which has been laid in all UK legislatures. I'm sorry, I always get a tongue-tied in that, but which could not be made in the UK Parliament until it has been approved by the devolved legislatures. I welcome Mary McCallan, Minister for Environment, Biodiversity and Land Reform and our officials for this item, who are Neil McLeod, principal legal officer, Caspian Richards, head of policy and pesticide survey unit science and advice for Scottish agriculture. I invite the minister to make an opening statement. Thank you very much, convener, and thank you all for the opportunity to give him today on this draft UK Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board amendment order 2022. By way of background, the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, or AHDB, as I'll refer to it, is a statutory levy board funded by farmers, growers and others in the supply chain. It provides services and advice to support and promote our world-class food and farming industry. AHDB comprises six statutory levy paying sectors currently included within the scope of this order, which are cereal and oil seed industries in UK, milk, horticulture and potato in GB and pig, beef and sheep industries in England. As she said, convener, the order is a UK-wide instrument made in exercise of powers conveyed under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. On the Secretary of State acting, as you've said, with approval of the Scottish ministers but the act also provides that Scottish ministers may not give that approval without the approval of the Scottish Parliament and that's why it's before you today. As to the purpose of the order, it's to amend the principal agriculture and horticulture development board order of 2008 which established AHDB and is the source of AHDB's functions. It will amend it to remove the statutory levy in horticulture and potato sectors in GB. This is being done because in January and February of 2021 levy payers in the horticulture and potato sectors triggered a democratic ballot on whether they wanted the statutory levy to continue in their sectors. In horticulture 61 per cent voted against the levy continuing from a turnout of 69 per cent and in the potato ballot 66 per cent voted against the levy continuing from a 64 per cent turnout. This instrument therefore gives rise to the democratically expressed views respect the outcome of the ballots and it does that by removing all legislative provisions for the statutory levy in these sectors. In addition to this, it also seeks to improve accountability for the remaining levy paying sectors which I mentioned at the beginning and it does this by imposing a new duty on AHDB to deliver a regular vote of the levy payers at least once every five years on what their levy will be spent on. Finally, the instrument introduces a final third technical amendment which will clarify that AHDB's ability to charge for services includes all industries in scope of the order and not only those that pay a levy. This is purely technical, it will ensure that although the statutory levy is being removed for horticulture and potatoes, the rest of the order will continue to apply to these sectors. It means that businesses in either sector could continue to work with AHDB in a voluntary or commercial basis if they decided to. As well as the provisions that are contained here the AHDB amendment order also consulted on a further proposal on broadening the scope of AHDB to further agricultural sectors. A majority of respondents in Scotland resisted that proposal voted against it and highlighted that AHDB should use this opportunity following the vote and the removal of the levy in some sectors to rationalise and deliver excellence in their service rather than expanding that, so that has not been included. In summary, I support the changes which the order makes to give expression to the democratic views expressed by horticulture and potato sectors and to introduce greater accountability for the remaining sectors. Looking forward, we will continue to work closely with horticulture and potato as they now work to identify their own priorities and the way they wish to organise themselves outwith the scope of the statutory mechanism. This draft order provides the flexibility for them to do this on an individual sub-sector basis and we will work with them as they decide what they wish to do. That is plenty for me, convener, but my officials and I are happy to take any questions. Thank you very much. We will move to questions. It was a democratic vote by the potato and horticulture sectors, but what does that vote say about the quality of services provided by AHDB and what impact do you foresee the sectors experiencing as a consequence of leaving? It is an indictment on how the horticulture and potato sectors felt they were experiencing value for money, quality of the services provided and accountability for the decisions that were made and perhaps what the levees were being spent on. For the remaining sectors within the order, that second provision in this piece of legislation today ought to help to improve the circumstances because we will have that vote every five years on what the levee should be spent on. As regards the future for horticulture and potatoes outwith the statutory mechanism, it is now open to them to decide as a sector either on a whole sector basis or a sub-sector basis how best they wish to organise themselves and, as I see it, the Scottish Government is here and happy and willing to continue working with them on that. Rachel Hamilton It is just a follow-up from Finlay's question. Despite the decision made through a democratic ballot I just wanted to hear more about the engagement that you had with the board about how it will impact them reaching out to provide either voluntary or commercial services to perhaps those horticultural potato growers that previously had their service. Does it have an impact on the support that the Scottish Government will have to give to the AHDB? On the first part of your question, Rachel, which I think is a sound one, there are a number of provisions that AHDB would previously have provided to horticulture and potatoes which I think the sector would happily say still remain very important including work on fight against blight aphid monitoring and indeed the applications for emergency pesticide use and things like this which were arranged on a collective basis previously and which I think now the conversations will be had about how best they wish to do that moving forward on that, the last one asked about interaction that we have had with them and consultation that we have had in the consultation I think it was clear that that last piece of work on the application of fertilisers was identified as being very important going forward and we will continue, AHDB will continue to provide that until 2023 responded to what was asked for in the consultation but as I say I feel very strongly that it's important to respond to democratic wishes as they are expressed and it's now for these industries to agree how they wish to organise themselves and we and AHDB and the four nations of the UK are here to continue working with them. Obviously the blight issue and the aphid issue is driven through a specific guidance within the potato sector that comes from Government so therefore I suppose it's really important and I would like your reassurance that you will continue to support not only the board itself but actually if it comes to the crux where perhaps there could be job losses for example because we need to make sure that Scotland is at the cutting edge of ensuring that we are tackling blight and tackling disease and ensuring that we don't have a pest issue so I think on behalf of the committee I just hope that we have reassurance from the Government that you will keep an eye on this situation Absolutely give that commitment first of all I would say I don't anticipate any job losses as a result of the removal of the statutory levy and then on the point about the continuing support for research and development in these particular areas as well as marketing which of course is separate we're absolutely there to do that in fact we recently invested I think it's 2.2 million in research into potato system ematode and that absolutely continues in our world class research facilities including the James Hutton Institute but I might hand over to Caspian just to see if there's anything else you wanted to add on that point No I mean I think that's very much the case that the research expertise we have in Scotland at the James Hutton and others is fundamental to that and obviously we support that through the strategic research programmes but yes and their ability to provide those services is kind of fundamental for the long-term solution but we're waiting to see what comes out from the industry discussions as to what form they think that we could take and again how we can support that Thank you Thank you Good morning, thanks very much for coming down I wondered if you could let us know what your understanding or Scottish Government's understanding is of how the UK Government reached the decision to require the board to hold a regular vote at least once every five years and not more frequently than that Thank you for the question so first of all it wasn't necessarily a UK Government decision it's joint Government's decision so just to give you a bit of background on how this happened so I think it was 2021 growers in Lincolnshire gather enough people together to vote that ballot takes place they vote as I set out in the opening remarks in majority to remove the ballot there is then a consultation which was developed by UK Government and by ourselves which spoke to some of the questions that were part of the ballot and some of the wider questions and within that was the point about that provision which will allow for a vote every five years that's at least every five years and the the HDB have already committed to doing so more frequently and I expect the first one will be I think April 2022 sorry Caspian I'll allow you to come in but it's at least every five years and I would expect it to be more often than that the HDBs have gone out for the first time to the continuing sectors as part of that exercise so it's literally opened at the moment to growers in those sectors so do you think or does the Scottish Government think that more regular voting will improve transparency and accountability more regularly than the five years sounds like you would be supportive of more frequently within reason I support as frequent and as broad and as deep consultation as is possible with those who are paying for the levy and paying for the services which the HDBs provide and so then if levy payers reject the proposals that are brought forward by the board on how the levy is going to be spent then how can the levy payers influence the proposals can they make counter proposals or what's the process for them that's a good question I'm not sure that I have the detail today on exactly what would happen if in one of those votes the levy payers rejected the proposals but I'm more than happy to go away and come back on that point that would be most helpful if you could come back to the committee and write on that that question that would be useful Alasdair Allan just to ask really briefly in your interaction with the potato and horticulture sectors on some of the issues that you've mentioned has the Government been alive to some of the wider challenges that those sectors have faced I think inevitably perhaps of EU exit but are there others as well Yes absolutely it's a tumultuous time for the sectors we particularly since EU exit when of course at the stroke of a pen the UK Government's Brexit deal ended the Scottish seed potatoes market for trade into the EU overnight so myself and our officials we meet regularly on a round table basis with potato and horticulture sector to on an on-going basis understand their concerns and how we can address them to date these are largely centering on trading opportunities post Brexit as I've just mentioned EU market has been cut off overnight the availability of workforce but it's largely a lack thereof and indeed supply chain disruption which Brexit has had a huge impact on but so too has the pandemic and other global issues now most of these areas are reserved we are in almost constant contact with the Home Office with the UK Government making representations on behalf of the Scottish sector I think that responses have been very disappointing so far but we will continue to make representations to them in the meantime we're supporting in the way that we can for example in R&D with the ways that I mentioned to Rachel Hamilton investing in research into blight and other pests that cause problems for the industry you mentioned seed potatoes can you give us your view on exactly where the problem lies with Scottish seed potatoes is it a UK Government position or is it an EU position on why seed potatoes are not able to be exported the way they were in the remit of what we're here to discuss today yes I did I'm happy to answer it it's a problem of dynamic alignment it's a failure of reaching agreement prior to Brexit taking place and that's undoubtedly the case what we need to focus on now is finding solutions I hope which will allow Scottish producers to continue to trade with the EU and equally at the same time finding alternative trading routes in the rest of the world and we require both the UK Government and the EU to get round the table and to make progress on that any further questions okay we now move on to our fourth agenda item which is the formal consideration of the motion to approve the instrument and invite Mr McCallan to move motion for S6M-03604 that the rural affairs island and natural environment committee recommends that the agriculture and horticultural development board amendment order 2022 draft be approved thanks does any member wish to debate the motion nope if the committee is content to recommend approval of the instrument can you please indicate by raising your hand thank you finally is the committee content to delegate authority to me to sign off our report on our deliberations on this affirmative SI thank you that completes consideration of the affirmative instrument and I thank the minister and officials for attending today we now move on to agenda item 5 which is consideration of consent notifications for two UK statutory instruments the common agriculture policy cross compliance exemptions and transitional regulation amendment EU exit regulations 2022 and the site of sanitary conditions amendment number 2 regulations 2022 and I refer members to paper 3 from page 16 does any member have any comments on these instruments nope members are content to agree to the Scottish Government's decision to consent to the provision set out on notifications being included in the UK rather than the Scottish subordinate legislation content and that concludes our business in public and we now move into private session