 I welcome to the 13th meeting of the rule affairs and islands committee in 2023. Before we can begin, I remind those members using electronic devices to please turn them to silent. We welcomed agenda item 1, and we welcomed to the meeting our new member, Roda Grant, who replaces Mercedes Valabra, and I invite Roda to declare any relevant interests. I don't think that I've got any relevant interests to declare but refer members to my i gafoddiad i gwasanaeth, a'r next item of business this morning is consideration of petition PE 1, a 7.58 in Greyhound racing in Scotland, and I would like to welcome Matt Ruskell back to the committee as a MSP, with a particular interest in this topic. Welcome to the meeting, Claire Calder, the head of public affairs from the Dogs Trust and Gillie Mendes Ferreira, director of innovation and strategic relations from the Scottish SSPCA, and joining us remotely is Sam Gaines, the head of companion animals from the RSPCA. Sam, if you would like to contribute if you could put an R in the chat box in the usual manner. We have approximately 75 minutes this morning for questions and discussion. I'm going to kick off. Can I ask the witnesses how you've engaged with the greyhound racing industry and what direct experience you have of greyhound racing and the welfare of racing dogs? And I would like to specifically say whether you've got any specific engagement with greyhound racing in Scotland. So we'll kick off with Gillie. Okay, thank you very much and thank you for the committee for inviting me today. Certainly the Scottish SSPCA, we have been looking at the greyhound industry for 20 years. We have investigated various concerns around the greyhound industry in previous years. Many of those tracks now don't exist in Scotland. The one remaining track, we haven't been out or not been invited out to inspect that track. We can only go out if we receive a complaint, a concern raised with us. The fact that that is an unregulated track and the fact that you also have the people at that track are the owners of the dogs themselves. There are no public there. We as a result have not had complaints about that specific track. We have however dealt with 21 reports regarding the same address and that is linked to somebody who does race their dogs at that particular track. We have investigated that and at the moment the conditions relating to the kennels and how those animals are housed. They have met the bare minimum standards that are required at the moment. The calls to our animal helpline around greyhound racing are quite low with only three calls per year from 2018 to 2022. As I said previously, we have done some investigations, also linked to the use of drugs. In that industry at the time when that was conducted, which was back in 2016, the testing was not available to prove that the drugs that we seized were the drugs like was it cocaine, was it other drugs being used. The testing was not available for that. It is a similar barrier that we have had with regards to canine fertility clinics and anything that we seized from that. We have been working with the veterinary medical directed over the past year to develop that testing system so that we can prove that anything that we do seized as part of these investigations are indeed the drugs that we suspect that they are and therefore you have the evidence to go towards a prosecution. It has been a challenging industry for us but the Scottish SPCA has not changed its stance. We have always called previously for the unregulated greyhound industry to not exist. Obviously, given that we now have one track left in Scotland, we still have concerns, particularly based on the GBGB statistics that have been released, that you are requiring animals knowing the risks involved, getting them to run round a track, knowing that there is a high collision risk on that first bend and purely for the purpose of an entertainment, so we have welfare concerns. Just to clarify a couple of things before we move on, when was the last time you visited Thornton? Thornton was only visited by the commission itself. Obviously, we have a representative who is independent on that commission but we have not had an invitation out to Thornton. Okay, so you have not had an invitation but you have also had no complaints that would... That would warrant us to go out. As an enforcing body, we need to have the complaints to be able to actually action that and we have not had that specifically to Thornton. You also talked about drugs, the complaints you have had about dogs potentially using drugs. Is there any evidence that these dogs are racing at Thornton or are they racing at GBGB tracks? That was linked to a previous GBGB track at Shawfield and other tracks that now are non-existent in Scotland. There is no evidence that dogs at Thornton... Not that we have seen at the moment, the complaints re-thornton linked to mainly dogs and the conditions that the dogs are living in and those dogs being raced at Thornton but not Thornton itself. You will understand the reason that line of questioning because we do not have any GBGB tracks in Scotland now and we are looking potentially at a ban of greyhound racing, which would be around flapper tracks, if you like. It is really important that the evidence we get relates to what is happening in Scotland. Can I move on to Claire, please? Hi, thank you also for having me here today to give evidence. Dogs Trust has worked with the greyhound industry for many years, primarily through the greyhound forum where we have tried for many, many years to work with the industry to improve the welfare and the conditions for the animals involved in the industry. I think it is important to say that we have now resigned our membership of the greyhound forum and the reason for that is because although there has been progress for animal welfare as part of our membership, we are now in a position where we feel like sufficient progress has not been made and cannot be made to safeguard the welfare of the greyhounds involved in the industry. In terms of Scotland-specific activities, the primary activity that is worth mentioning is that we do home the greyhounds from the industry. Every year we take greyhounds into our care in Scotland and then we home them through our two rehoming centres in Scotland and we are happy to provide the committee with those Scotland-specific statistics that are useful as well. Just back to your role as rehoming, do you know whether the majority of dogs at your rehome are dogs that have been involved in the greyhound racing industry or have you any experience of rehousing from Thornton as a unlicensed non-GBGB track? I think that the way that we take greyhounds in Scotland can be through a combination of ways. For example, for other charities or direct handovers from trainers, what I would say is that in 2021 and 2022 we did take in greyhounds into our care in Scotland and, of course, Shawfield, the GBGB track has not been operating since 2020. We did see a spike in the number of greyhounds coming into our care in 2020, which might well be related to the pandemic and trainers not being able to keep their greyhounds during that time, but that also coincides with when the Shawfield stadium stopped activity. Okay, so again, this is mostly around GBGB. You have no evidence that you have taken dogs that were slowly raced at Thornton, because that understanding is that GBGB dogs do not race at Thornton, and they are not allowed to race at any other tracks in GBGB licence track, so have you any evidence that dogs that may have raced at Thornton have had to be rehomed? In terms of the greyhounds that come into our care, we have not broken it down to that level, but I am aware that GBGB submitted supplementary evidence to the committee, which I think was published yesterday, which did indicate that dogs from GBGB tracks have gone on to independent tracks to race. Okay, thank you. Sam? Thank you very much for giving me some evidence today and apologies that I am not there in person. Obviously, Gillie has covered the enforcement issues for Scotland. I was PCI and it does not operate in Scotland, so I am just going to cover basically what our relationship has been with the industry. Like Claire has explained, the RSPCI has had a long history of working with the industry to improve the welfare of working greyhounds. Primarily that has been through the Greyhound Forum, but like dogs just, the RSPCI also left the forum last Friday and for the same reasons as described by Claire. Through our membership of the forum, we have been very actively involved in the provision of advice to aid policy. For example, we have provided advice around the hot weather policy and also around fireworks. We have also contributed to the development of standards of care. For example, the GBGB's specification for greyhound trainers and their code of practice. We have made a number of contributions in that sense. What we have also done is funded major research projects that have sought to improve the welfare of racing greyhounds. We have funded an expansive programme of research with the University of Bristol several years ago. That was very much aiming to look at different initiatives that could impact on the longevity and performance of racing greyhounds, as well as welfare issues that affect racing greyhounds such as dental problems and also looking at how to improve the welfare compatibility of transportation. We have done a series of research. We have also commissioned a review looking at the thermal regulation of racing greyhounds, which again was to aid the industry in helping them to protect the welfare of greyhounds during racing in hot weather. We have also, in addition to working with the regulated industry, also spent over two decades trying to seek change in the independent sector. Obviously, for the Irish PCA, that is looking at independent tracks in England and Wales. We have done a lot of work in Wales trying to put forward proposals for regulations and also code of practice for greyhounds racing in Wales. Most recently, we developed and co-wrote a voluntary code of practice for racing greyhounds in Wales, but, to the best of our knowledge, that was not taken forward by the track. It is also important to say that we have worked very closely with the industry to seek a statutory levy. We have worked with them and attended meetings with DCMS, for example, to make that case. Despite our long history of having worked with the industry, we now strongly believe that it is a long way from ensuring the welfare of the dogs that are involved in racing. We do not feel that progress has been made quickly enough or on a big enough scale to protect the dogs that are affected by sport and leisure activity, and so we are now of the view that this activity has to be phased out. Thank you very much. I have got a supplementary for Christian Graham and Ariane Burgess. Before we go on, I just want to clarify something. You suggested that it was only the owners of dogs that attended Thornton. Are the public excluded from attending these dog races? Not as far as I am aware, so I think that they are able to attend it if they choose to do so, but as far as I am aware, and again, I think that we saw that reflected in the SOC report as well, that public don't tend to be there. I just want to follow up. You have clarified something that I was trying to, I am just searching the official report with regard to the evidence of Paul Bignall, who is the proprietor at Thornton. He said that we would more than welcome the SSPC if it wanted to come. In fact, we have written to Mike Flynn saying that you have had every opportunity to come and visit our track. He eventually came to the track with Professor Dwyer. I do not think that he was in any way concerned about anything that went on the track. I confirm that. I did ask Mike Flynn following that comment. He has not received any correspondence inviting him in his Scottish SPC capacity to come out. Likewise, we have checked our records. No other person in Scottish SPC has been invited to come out to that and view that track. His capacity when he went out with Professor Kathy Dwyer was in a SOC membership. There is a confusion here perhaps rather than misleading us. In that circumstance, it should be perhaps us, Mr Bignall, to invite out the SSPC. He seems to be quite open to that. The other thing that I noticed was that, because I noticed that when you said that the SSPC can only go for your own bat if it is following a complaint as an enforcement agency, that I understand. The other thing that Mr Bignall said was that he seemed to think, try to give us the impression that is perhaps unkind, that in fact his track, the welfare of the animals was much better than perhaps at GBBB ones, because these were amateurs racing them, these were well looked after animals were like family pets and so on. Whereas with the licence ones in England, there was a lot of money involved, they were more like commodities than actual pets and so on. He gave us his opinion that in fact these animals were well kept at home. I challenged him and said, well, you don't really know that. I noticed that the one thing you've called on was that you had to go out to a home address. What did you find when you said, met the bare minimum? Again, obviously, if we get a complaint that there's concerns on animal being kenneled and not being kenneled in the right requirements, the dogs at that address were meeting the basic standards that are required by legislation. Again, you would question quality of life. What is that? I don't know the basic standards. That's linked to how long they're kenneled for, the size of the kennels, are they getting the basic needs, food, water etc, are they taken out for exercise, all those types of things. What you would question is overall welfare. If you've got a dog that's spending most of its time being kenneled, that is something that legislative-wise they are giving the animal what it needs according to legislation. It's getting the food, the water, it's got somewhere to sleep, it's got shelter, all those types of things. But in our opinion it would be better, obviously, that they're not kenneled all the time as a perfect example. To get to the kenneling, they're kenneled all the time? Yes, because that's obviously linked to GBGB's standards as well, that the dogs are kenneled. All the time? I mean, they get out for a little bit of exercise, toileting and so on, that's it. And have you had any other issues with owners of greyhounds who raised them in this amateur fashion at Thornton's? Not, no, it's mainly been this one individual that we've been dealing with. Okay, thank you very much. Arianne Burgess. I'd be interested to hear what impact GBGB's decision to remove both of your organisations from the eligible list of greyhound retirement scheme funding has had on your homing efforts and, in your opinion, has the industry considered potential animal welfare impacts with homing that could be caused as a result? I'd say this one. Actually, it was Dogtrust and Blue Cross that have been removed from the greyhound retirement scheme. So we announced a new policy position in September last year, and that's when we were removed as approved rehoming organisations under the scheme. So as you'll know, the scheme gives a bond of £400 per greyhound rehomed. I think from our perspective, the key thing about us being removed from this scheme is the kind of impression that gives in terms of how important greyhound welfare is to the industry rather than the impacts on us as a charity per se. And the reason for that is because the £400 bond does not go anywhere near the amount that it would cost us to care and rehome a greyhound. So to give just some examples, Dogtrust between November 2018 and April 2021 took in 14 injured greyhounds from the independent valley track in Wales. The external veterinary cost to treat those dogs alone ranged from £690 to £4,800. That doesn't take into account any ongoing veterinary treatments or any of the care that we provided those dogs. So we would argue that the £400 actually doesn't go anywhere near to covering the cost for treating and rehoming greyhounds, especially injured greyhounds. And actually we have continued to take in greyhounds and home them through our network of rehoming centres anyway. I think throughout our changing policy position, calling for a phased end to greyhound racing, we have been absolutely clear that we are as committed as ever to the welfare of the greyhounds involved in the industry. So we are committed to rehoming any greyhound that needs us, whether that's greyhounds currently involved in the sport or should there be a phased end, we would be committed to rehoming any greyhounds that need a home as a result of that as well. You mentioned that you changed your policy position and you also mentioned that you left the greyhound forum. I'd be interested to hear in your view, do you think the industry is doing enough to protect the health and welfare associated with racing greyhounds through its welfare strategy? So I think it was mentioned in the evidence session with GBGB last week that we were invited to contribute to the strategy when it was being developed. I think it's important to mention that we were essentially asked to complete a form around the five domains model for animal welfare. We weren't further involved in the strategy, so for example we didn't see a draft before it was published and we weren't given kind of advanced notice sufficiently in advance of it being published either. When we assessed the strategy we do have concerns, so partly there isn't currently funding available to implement the full animal welfare strategy, but even if there was we would be concerned about its ability to fully ensure that every greyhound can live a good life and the reason for that is there is much more of an emphasis on the kind of health or veterinary needs of greyhounds compared to the kind of more behavioural and welfare side of things. Essentially a lot of the strategy is also looking at how resilient greyhounds are, so looking at ways to make them more resilient within the industry. I think within animal welfare we would tend to look at how we can change the environment to protect the welfare of the animals involved rather than making the animals more resilient. Lastly within the strategy there is nothing in there specifically looking at the benefits of straight tracks, so we know that running at speed around an oval stadium is inherently dangerous for greyhounds. In particular the kind of bunching together at speed to go around the bend tends to be when a lot of the injuries take place, so by even looking at a straight track the collisions that happen when going around the bends would be removed from the situation and we're disappointed that that's not included within the strategy as well. Thanks very much Sam, could I just ask for your thoughts on the welfare strategy? Thank you, Claire has given a very comprehensive overview around it. What I would add to the comments that Claire has made is that there was an expectation in delivery of the welfare strategy that other stakeholders including the welfare members of the greyhound forum would contribute to the strategy. Unfortunately we were not given sight of that draft pre-publications, the first we became aware of it was actually when it had been published. There obviously is an expectation that us as rehoming organisations and welfare organisations are going to help GBGB deliver their strategy and that is of a concern because obviously as well as having to potentially assist with activities that we weren't aware of there is also that possibility that we could be held to account if the GBGB failed to deliver the strategy and I think what I really would emphasise is our significant concern around the lack of funding to deliver that strategy. So it has been said in the evidence sessions, it was also said to us in the greyhound forum meeting in January that the short-term activities had been funded but the funding for both the mid-term and the long-term activities was still under discussion with bookmakers and I think that that really is a concern because the RSPCA and other members as part of the greyhound forum has long been in discussion with around funding and ensuring that there is this sustainable income which is absolutely necessary and so for us it remains a real cause of concern that they haven't got the funding that is necessary to actually deliver that strategy but as Claire said as well even if there was the funding in place and that strategy was actually delivered we don't believe that it actually would provide a life for a good life for every greyhound from cradle to grave and I think that's what is absolutely critical. Thank you, thanks convener. Just before we move on you may have seen in the previous sessions there was some concerns over the reliance of the report that RSPCA and Dogs Trust and Blue Cross report had with regards to the SAWC's report. They actually delayed reporting back to the committee waiting on your report to be completed yet they said that they used it for background information only but you will have realised that there were some concerns over the lack of data that was actually in the SAWC's report and a lot of supposition rather than hard fact. We've not seen the report that you commissioned and in fact the organisations have refused to share that report with us and have only produced an overview of the assessment. Claire can ask you why you're not prepared to publish that report in full because obviously it raises questions about the transparency and whether the recommendations or the basis on which SAWC reported to this committee are what they're founded on and what the basis for their decisions are. Why has that report not been made public? Absolutely. We worked with a range of consultancies and experts to review our policy position on Greyhounds. As part of that it included a review but we also did other activities as well. That was never intended to be published as charities it was intended so RSPCA and Dogs Trust together funded a review. That was part of a wider part of a policy review and as charities that was intended to inform our internal policies not to be published but we have shared a really comprehensive overview of it with the committee yesterday. The full review was also shared with SAWC. The reasons around this is that we absolutely stand by the evidence. It's a very complex issue. The review summary that we have given provides a completely comprehensive overview that covers all the topics within the wider review. As an annex to the SAWC report you can see a more condensed summary that summarises all the topics that are included in the review as well. You can understand why there have been elements of that report that have not been made public and it's not helpful for us to make a decision on potentially recommending a ban on greyhound racing. Can you tell us whether there was any consideration of the likes of Thornton? Do you do any work to look at Thornton in particular? Again, we have to remind ourselves that the only greyhound race that does take place in Scotland is a non-GBGB track. The review itself covered greyhound racing across the UK, so all of the UK nations, so by default it covered both GBGB tracks and the remaining independent tracks across GB. The SAWC report summarised it very well in terms of the evidence that is available for the independent track. The independent tracks are not required to publish their injury and retirement data. That does by default mean that there isn't much data available. The absence of data in itself, I don't think that we have anything to suggest that the risks would be any different racing on an independent track compared to a GBGB track. Racing around an oval track at speed is inherently dangerous for greyhounds. We know that it causes injuries and in some cases for greyhounds to die or be put to sleep. For us, as an animal charity, that's just not something that we can stand by. Do you think that there's a cultural difference between the likes of Thornton and GBGB when we talk about the greyhound racing industry? Would you describe what the activity that's carried out is Thornton as an industry, given the evidence that we've heard? I think that what was quite interesting during the evidence session last week was the indication that if a bookmaker couldn't attend Thornton, the meeting wouldn't take place, so that in itself does not suggest that it's purely a hobby activity. But going back to the nature of the industry as well, racing around an oval track is inherently dangerous to greyhounds. Regardless of whether it's being carried out as a hobby or as a commercial activity, the activity itself is dangerous to greyhounds. Do you suggest that the people who go to race in Thornton do it as a commercial activity? Certainly the indication that the race would not take place as a bookmaker wasn't there, suggests that it's not purely a hobby activity. I sometimes have a tipple on the Grand National, but I wouldn't say that I undertake horse racing as a commercial activity. I think that we've got to be really careful. Do you think that people race greyhounds at Thornton on a commercial basis? I think that within the STALK report, again, there were some quite useful aside in terms of the community aspects of the track. We know that the attendees at the track all in one way or another tend to be involved in the industry. I think that we're not suggesting that there aren't those wider factors at play, but the indication that the meetings don't go ahead, unless there's a bookmaker, suggests that there's a level of gambling activity happening at the track. Some of the points that I was going to ask have been covered by others, but it was really just to briefly first get an assessment from your on-the-SAWC report. As others have indicated, it's been very difficult while questioning people at our sessions here to get an indication of how evidence was gathered. A lot of the questions we asked simply drew answers like, well, we don't have any evidence on that. Are you satisfied with that as a report given—I'm not here to rubbish the report, but we were surprised at how many times we got the answer that we didn't gather any evidence on that. Sorry, we don't know. I think that it's hugely challenging. For the independent tracks, because there isn't a requirement to publish data, that does inherently create gaps within the data, but the data that we do have—GBGBs since 2018 have published data every year on the injury rates and what happens to dogs upon their retirement—is factual data that we have from the industry. That data suggests that between 2018 and 2021 over 2,000 dogs died or were put to sleep as a result of the industry, and there were nearly 18,000 injuries. I think that if you look at some of the examples of the injuries that we have seen as dogs trust in dogs that we have taken in. Again, looking at the example of the independent track in Wales and the level of injuries that we have seen in those dogs, we are looking at dogs that needed complex orthopedic interventions. For example, that might include pinning of bones and lengthy rehabilitation for them to be able to walk again, let alone race. These are really serious injuries that we are talking about. Although there are gaps, as we have mentioned, in terms of the independent racing, the data that we do have suggests that racing itself is inherently dangerous. I want to ask Gillian Mendes. Your organisation's position is that unregulated tracks should come to an end. I appreciate that there is only an unregulated track in Scotland, so it is difficult to make a recommendation about anything else. As others have mentioned, we have heard an awful lot about the distinction or the differences between commercial GBGB tracks operating in England and what seems to be a hobby activity in Thornton. I am not saying that to minimise the risks, but we have also heard an awful lot about some of the casualty figures for GBGB tracks. I appreciate that there is only one track for you to come to a view on, and it happens to be unregulated in Scotland. However, why did you focus in on unregulated tracks and making recommendations to bring this activity to an end? Again, as we are left with one unregulated, previously, if I give Schofield as an example. Between 2017 and 2020, there were 197 injuries recorded with 15 deaths. The other tracks that we looked at are, again, similar. I think that it comes back to what Claire said. Whether it is regulated or not regulated, you still have dogs racing around an oval track at speed. They are sighthounds and they are going to follow that. They will naturally clump together on those corners because they are focused on that target, so you have that increased risk of collision. The fact that, yes, GBGB has been producing stats has recognised and acknowledged that the dogs get injured during that activity. For us, whether it is regulated or not regulated, you also have an industry that is self-regulating itself. There is no independence there. There is nobody scrutinising the figures in an independent capacity. You have not got a vet new profession, doing that independent verification around the statistics. We have found it quite difficult to interpret the GBGB stats because, again, it is focused on the number of runs. The percentages are not relating to the number of dogs who have run. Again, that is quite challenging, but from our perspective, if you take it back to the basics, you are requiring dogs to run around a track knowing that they are going to get injured, and that is why we have the concerns. Allianne Burgesson and Jim Fairlie. Just to go in a little bit more in there, I am not sure who needs to pick this up, so I can choose between the three of yourselves. Do you believe that recommendations of the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission's report, including on introducing veterinary presence on-site and independent regulation for the independent track in Scotland, will be sufficient to tackle the inherent health and welfare concerns associated with racing? Certainly one of our big concerns is that, yes, you could have that requirement of having a vet on track. When those races are run in the evening, where is that vet coming from? Where is the resource? Where are the financials to pay for that? Getting access to out-of-hours veterinary care is a barrier that we sometimes struggle with. We operate in the evenings. That can be challenging. Where is that going to be that guarantee that if you do an investment that that animal is going to get the treatment that they require? We would have concerns of the volume of investment that would be required to get them up to the standard where it would. Again, it brings it back to the basics. Why, in this day and age, when we are saying that we are a nation that cares about animal welfare, we are saying that it is acceptable to have dogs run around a track knowing that they are going to get injured? I think that I would echo what Gillian has said. I think that the veterinary presence, of course, we would welcome veterinary presence at tracks. We have to acknowledge that that in itself is not going to resolve the issues or be a panacea to the situation. I think that we do agree with a lot of the findings within the report, but crucially what we do not agree with is Greyhound racing being allowed to continue in Scotland without a path to an end. We do not believe that independent regulations such as local authority regulation or under the auspices of the new Scottish veterinary service would be sufficient to safeguard the welfare of Greyhounds. From our independent policy review, we did look at a range of options which could be considered to be useful in protecting the welfare of Greyhounds. Out of those options, which did include better independent regulation, for example, the only two options that guaranteed the welfare of Greyhounds was either an outright ban on Greyhound racing or a phased end. We have arrived at a phased end being the preferable option so that we can guarantee the welfare of the animals that are currently involved in the industry. We can ensure that we, with partners across Great Britain, can rehome the dogs that are involved in the industry. Thank you, convener. Claire, that is just a bit of clarification from yourself. You represent the dog's trust. Have you, as the dog's trust, attended the Greyhound track either incognito or as an official capacity? You also said that you had taken in a number of dogs and you cited the Welsh unregistered track. Have you got figures for dogs that have been raised in Scotland that you have had to deal with? We, as dogs trust, have not attended the Thornton track in an official capacity. In terms of the dogs that we take in Greyhounds, ex racing Greyhounds, that we take into our care in Scotland, we do have the figures for those. I think that it would be difficult for us to guarantee whether they have come from Thornton specifically because of the way that we take in dogs, but we are very happy to share our rehoming figures for Greyhounds with the committee. You may have a lot of the answers in this report, but unfortunately we only have about 20 minutes before this meeting, so we are going to have to digest this before we can come back to you. Thank you, convener. I am wondering how the dogs trust and the RSPCA concluded that there should be a phased end to Greyhound racing and that the concerns about animal welfare cannot be resolved. I have looked or tried to look at the summary of the paper very quickly, despite it being given to us 20 minutes ago. It does not give concrete evidence regarding the specific cases in Scotland, and neither does the Salk report. Some of the Salk report that I read gives anecdotal evidence. It also says that the conditions met were within the standards of the Animal Health and Welfare Scotland Act 2006. How is your conclusion made regarding animal welfare when I cannot find the evidence to suggest that you had concrete evidence to prove that? Sam, do you want me to take it? Perhaps if I take it and then we pass to Sam afterwards. Within the review, there are lots of examples of welfare issues associated with Greyhound racing, and we are talking about issues throughout every life stage of a race in Greyhound. Can you specifically answer the question regarding the, for example, you weren't to know which bit I was looking at, but it was regarding there was positive interaction with family members outside the kennel, the housing conditions, and really the way that they were kept as a domestic animal would be kept. Are you referring to within the Salk report? Yes. Within the Salk report it is mentioned that it was difficult to gather evidence of the way Greyhounds are kept, which race on the Thornton track. The commission had asked for evidence from owners and trainers who had submitted, for example, photo evidence. Within that evidence there were, of course, examples of Greyhounds, that seem to be family pets. There were also examples of Greyhounds that had been kept in kennels, which Salk had mentioned looked like, although the animals themselves seemed to be in good condition, some of the conditions weren't what we would like to see. For example, they weren't provided with any bedding, it was more litter, no enrichment that we would normally like to see. I think when we are talking about the way Greyhounds are kept, if they are kenneled, it's really important that the majority of Greyhounds, so 90% of Greyhounds, are no longer racing by the time they're five years old. Greyhounds can live their average lifespan is between 10 and 14 years of age. We are looking at animals that are then expected to be honed into a home environment where they might never have experienced all of the normal things from a home environment if they are kept in kennels without enrichment. I think that's just one example of the welfare concerns that we would have. Can I ask the SSPCA earlier on in the evidence session that you talked about the number of complaints? I'm sure that I picked up that you said that there were three. Over what period was that? In comparison to the number of complaints regarding any other domestic dogs, how many do you get per year in terms of animal welfare? I was referring to that before. I was only three calls per year from 2018 to 2022, specifically relating to racing Greyhounds. As for the other stats, I can certainly share more detailed stats around in general and break that down and submit that to the committee not a problem. Roughly how many do you get on average without being specific? If you think that we get 87,000 incidents or investigations that we go out to, I would have to come back to the committee on specific as to how it relates to dogs, cats, because obviously we cover every single species in Scotland. When you were doing it on a daily basis going out to these situations, how many on average would you get called to in a week? Again, I can't get the answer just now. I would need it because it's weak operate throughout the whole of Scotland, so I would need to come back to you. I'm sorry to make it clear. We have an average three animal welfare complaints relating to Greyhounds. Three per year surely is insignificant. Even though every dog is important, three would appear to be insignificant compared to the numbers that we get called to on average. Of those three complaints per year, how many go through to build a legal case? Because you suggested that the dogs relating to Thornton actually, the complaints were not held because the dogs were kept within the conditions that the legislation requires. So three would be insignificant, I would suggest, if you're talking about 85,000 calls. But how many of those three calls resulted in legal action being taken? Again, as I obviously stated previously, from the prosecution perspective it has been proven challenging because of the evidence base that we need to get. Of those three calls at the moment, we've not had anything that's warranted enough to go as far as a prosecution. So there's been no prosecution relating to animal welfare issues with Greyhounds since 2018? Relating to Thornton specifically. Ord more generally? More generally. Again, this is a time ago, we had a prosecution against a Greyhound owner at Gretna, who was tying live rabbits to Mechanical Lear. When the wish or track closed, we did, unfortunately, have to fish out dead Greyhounds the following week from a quarry. We were involved in a multi-agency operation at the Armadale track. We led on that. That was linked to drugs, and subsequently that stadium did close. So we have had things, but when being asked about Thornton specifically, we've not had anything that's led to prosecution. Okay, the bigger pattern for interrupting, Rachel, to continue. Just on the issue of drugs, because drugs seem to have been mentioned quite a lot in relation to Greyhound racing, what percentage of cases are you called out to relating to drugs and domestic cases? Again, that's something I can give an accurate answer. I want you to come back to the committee on that. Is it quite, you know, we've heard in previous committees that there is a relationship between, for example, organised crime and domestic pet ownership? Certainly, we are a special investigations unit. They are investigating things particularly relating to the poppy trade, the establishment of canine fertility clinics, and this is why we've worked very closely over this past year, in particular, with the veterinary medical director to develop those tests that are required, because obviously we are quite rarely getting told that bottle that you have seized as evidence how can you prove that the substance in that bottle is what you're saying it is? But this is not typical to Greyhound racing owners. So we did, the investigation that we did in 2016 was relating to Shawfield, and that was drugs related. And have you ever done any other investigations that were out with that, that related to the general animal or pet ownership? Again, at the moment currently, it's more linked to the poppy trade. I just have one more part to this question, which I might direct at RSPCA. What other avenues, other than, well, clearly, can I just say there's a feedback on this? Is it, can it be sorted or, sorry about that, thank you. Yeah, so did you look at any alternatives to a ban? As Claire described, in terms of the report, there were a number of options that were considered, and these ranged from working with the industry to improve standards around welfare, right through to calling for an immediate ban. And as part of our policy review internally, we did look at each of those different options and considered a range of factors. Quite a key factor was the availability of funding to actually achieve welfare change, as well as the likely public acceptance and other factors. So it was a very considered review and obviously also took into consideration our vast experience and history of working with the industry. And I think, you know, it's also fair to say that we do this with every single policy issue and welfare issue that we look to tackle. So we will look at the welfare impact on the animals that are involved in that particular industry, for example, but we'll also look at the potential for those animals to be safeguarded and for improvements to be made. And it was our conclusion from going through the evidence in the report and our discussions internally that we have reached a point where there has not been sufficient progress and there is just too much to do. There is a requirement for the industry to undergo wholesale reform if we are to be given the assurance that each and every racing Greyhounds has their welfare protected from cradle to grave. We don't have that assurance, we don't believe that that can be achieved and so we reached the conclusion that the first end to racing in the UK was the best option available to safeguard Greyhounds welfare. How can you give that assurance to cradle to grave if part of the industry is regulated in Ireland? I think that that's an issue in itself because obviously what we want to make sure is that there is that assurance for welfare from cradle to grave and I think that's where we would come back to the ability for GBGV to be able to provide that assurance. So they said in the evidence last week that part of the strategy very much was addressing the ability to protect the welfare of Greyhounds that have bred in the Republic of Ireland of which the vast majority come up on race here but we would actually argue around the GBGV's ability to be able to provide for that power. So GBGV obviously has the ability to be the self-regulatory body in Great Britain but we don't know to what extent they have to be able to influence through the Republic of Ireland and so they've said in their strategy that their intention is to reach out to the relevant bodies within Ireland but there is no guarantee that they will be able to provide that assurance and that the standard of welfare that we want to see in the Republic of Ireland will be achieved. Thank you. We're going to come back to the whole life experience of a recent dog that questions right at the end of this session but I'm going to bring in Ariane Burgess with a supplement and then Mark Ruskell. Thanks, convener. I'd be interested to hear along the same lines what are the limitations of the Animal Health and Welfare Scotland Act 2006 when it comes to the protection of the health and welfare of Greyhounds used for racing in Scotland? Maybe I'll start with you, Sam. So I think one of our concerns around that particular piece of legislation is the fact that it is largely aimed at companion animals and with any legislation what we would want to see is the ability for it to actually be able to be targeting the welfare of the animals that have been used. So we very much would want to see Greyhounds specific regulations if we were talking about a specific piece of legislation in the same way that we would see breeding regulations, boarding regulations, for example. So if we're talking about specific activities, we'd want to see legislation that is aimed at protecting those animals and obviously we don't have that under that particular piece of legislation. And I think what's also important to say as well around that particular act and actually that is common to other acts that are similar to it is that once you start to look at the regulatory power, the more power a piece of legislation has, typically the less abilities in terms of actually delivering the welfare provisions that we would want to see. So probably a good example is that the act that we're talking about obviously does give detail around welfare provisions but not in great detail, whereas if we look at codes of practice, for example, they tend to have a lot more rigor in terms of the welfare provision but have far less regulatory power. We do actually do have Greyhounds are specifically mentioned within the legislation that Ariane Burgess touched on on Scotland, the Greyhounds are mentioned. So a follow-up from that, Gillie, can you tell us why the current legislation which includes Greyhounds and names them specifically is not sufficient when the cabinet secretary believed they are? Yeah, so obviously when we use that existing legislation, you know, receive a complaint, we need to prove that unnecessary suffering has been caused to the animal involved, hence that legislation. Greyhound racing, that is deemed as a lawful activity at present and the court might obviously say well how has that animal suffered because it's taken place during a lawful activity where that suffering would be expected to expect the animal to get injured because that's what that activity is, so that would be a challenge that we would face because it's a specific activity with its own specific risks. You can't really compare that to the general companion animal, which is a completely different environment, so that's why we would say that warrants having its own specific legislation attached to it. Thank you, that's very helpful. Yeah, so I'd be interested to hear what changes and reforms to Greyhounds racing industry have you identified would be necessary to implement in order to ensure racing Greyhounds experience, so that they experience a sustainable and ethical way of living and how have these points led to your updated policy position and I was interested to hear you also identify that the code of practice is more maybe a better way to go. I don't know if you want to because you've covered that quite in detail in your report anyway, so within our review of our policy we did look at what changes would be necessary to ensure a good life for racing Greyhounds, so for example there were changes identified which would be necessary but we are concerned that individually none of those changes would be sufficient and even a combination of them would not be sufficient which is how we've arrived at the need for a phased end to Greyhound racing but to give some examples, accountability for all dogs exiting racing and entering racing, there's a lot of wastage at the moment and accounted for dogs, funding security for Greyhounds welfare, at the moment there is a voluntary levy of 0.6% from the bookmakers which doesn't, we know that the budget has reduced in recent years but it also doesn't give that safeguarding in terms of the welfare funding is assured year on year. We would like to see action on racetracks safety to eliminate the danger of injury and death, so for example looking at things like the shape of the track and one UK-wide and republic of island compatible microchip identification and transparent database for example and also compulsory and independently enforced five domains model based animal welfare standards. I think also the kind of oversight, so independent funded regulatory oversight and enforcement would be needed as well, we have touched on the fact that GBGB at the moment although they do have UCAS inspections of the tracks that are GBGB licensed, they are in effect checking GBGB's own standards of racing. So there's a huge amount that would be needed to ensure Greyhounds can live a good life, we don't think any of those things individually would solve the welfare issues and again going back to the fact that the evidence points to Greyhound racing being inherently dangerous for the Greyhounds which is why we've arrived at the conclusion that a phased end to Greyhound racing is the only way that we can guarantee their welfare. Thank you, thanks convener. Mark Ruskell. Yeah just coming back to that point that you've made several times this morning about the inherent risk of Greyhounds racing at speed around an oval track. I'm interested as to whether it is possible to actually reform that. I put it to GBGB last week that they could consider racing Greyhounds on a straight track. Is that something that the industry has meaningfully considered? Is there a way of removing that inherent risk in Greyhound racing or is there something about the nature of the sport, how it's televised, how it's grown up, how tracks are constructed that makes that difficult? I'm just trying to understand it because it would seem to me that if you remove that inherent risk you perhaps remove some of the central part of the objection to Greyhound racing. I think one of the arguments from the industry in terms of the need for an oval track is the audience experience. So they have previously argued that moving to a straight track would have an impact on the kind of audience viewing of the racing. Actually we would challenge that because the vast majority of viewers of Greyhound racing are now viewing the races online or televised for example in bookmakers. We know that audience attendance at Greyhound racing is in decline. We know the number of tracks even is in decline. It is a declining industry so we wouldn't consider it especially with the technology that is available today to be a valid argument that audience participation would be affected by a move to straight tracks. In terms of the evidence we have heard I think in the session last week included the industry is very much looking at how to remove all of the surrounding risk before looking at the track shape was certainly the impression that I got from the evidence session. I think if we look at the nature of the sport and where the collisions happen the bends around the oval tracks are a huge concern so it would certainly be something that would warrant consideration in terms of the risks involved in racing. That requires significant investment by the industry to do that straight tracks. If you look at Thornton, is the land mass around Thornton next to Amotoi, is it there to be able to do that type of construction for it to be straight tracks as well? I would question of all the measures that have already been proposed to increase that. I would doubt about the investment that is required by the industry to move to those straight tracks and whether we would be confident that that could be done. I do not know if Sam wants to come in on that or if it has been covered. I think that that is an area where there has been quite a bit of scientific research in terms of looking at what could be modified to try and reduce risk. Obviously we have spoken about the shape of the track but also things in terms of shortening races, looking at the position of the lure, making sure that the surface and track are well maintained. There definitely are measures that could be taken to reduce the risk to Greyhounds. As we have said throughout the session that the inherent danger that the sport risks to Greyhounds is only one of the factors that we are concerned about. When we are talking about ensuring that each and every Greyhound is given that assurance for at least a life worth living, we are talking about wholesale reform of an industry. I think that it was also mentioned by GBGB last week that if there was a phase out or a start ban on Greyhound racing, it would just drive it underground. Is it possible to drive Greyhound racing underground? I am trying to imagine how that would work but maybe it is. I do not know, maybe there are examples from that elsewhere. I think that I would express surprise that a large stadium, a large racetrack is needed for Greyhound racing. I would question how that is possible to hide and for the industry to go underground in that way. Julie, do you want to say? I agree with that. Given that some of the incentives around Greyhound racing are linked to gambling, I cannot see how it could not exist given that there is a physical event with multiple dogs. I do not see how that could be underground. Thornton is not televised and bookmaking is incidental. We must concentrate on that. We are not looking at the Greyhound industry in England. It is not televised and betting is not an important element. Rhoda Grant, please. I am trying to get to the bottom of the difference between licensed and unlicensed. I know that it is difficult with one racetrack in Scotland to have a good look at what goes on there. The impression that we are forming is that there is almost a professional licensed Greyhound racing industry that attracts finance, attracts betting and attracts audiences. There is also the unlicensed, which seems more for personal entertainment. What are the differences to your mind? If you have a dog that is trying to go at speed to win races to encourage betting, to one that is a family pet that is taken out on a Saturday for a run, the speed of the drag must be different, the way the animals are reared are different. Have you looked at that in any way? I suppose that the next question, along the same theme, is about what is the difference between that and horse racing. Certainly, between licensed and unlicensed, when you look at the other activities that are covered under licensing regs and so on, there are standards, access to veterinary care, accountability and recording of animals that are present, how often they run injuries and so on. If it is unregulated, there is no accountability there and nobody is asking for the statistics because they have nobody who is independently looking at that. There is no transparency as to what is going on in that track. The track designs, as far as I can see, are very the same from the curvature that is going round, anti-clockwise, the speed and so on, but the difference between whether it is regulated or not, when it is regulated, you should have that independent regulation going on, an inspection process going on to check all those things, check where those animals are housed on site. Likewise, that is ideally what has obviously been outlined from birth to death, what is the lifestyle and lifespan of that animal that is involved in that industry. With regards to the horse racing, that is a different concern. Obviously, today's debate is about greyhounds, so I am not here to comment about horse racing. I think that any animal that is used in a sport, each sport has its own challenges and each sport has its own welfare concerns and so on, if it involves animals. Certainly, they are a different greyhound horse racing, but today's discussion is about greyhounds. Is there anything to add? I am just very conscious of time. If you do not have something, some additionality will move on to the next question. I think that Sam would like to come in. It was just to make a point of clarity around following up from Matt Ruskell's question around what would happen should the sport be phased out and could it go underground. There is a lot of evidence, if we look outside of the UK in terms of where the sport has ceased, and I think that that would give a good indication or not as to whether the sport does indeed go underground if it actually is then banned. You have said that inherent risks. I have heard inherent risks used a number of times today. We do not regulate field dog trials for spaniels or labs. We do not regulate sheep dog trials. We do not regulate agility dogs. We do not regulate pigeon racing. Do you have concerns about those things? That is just a straight yes or no, but I am not one you are going to any depth. Gillle, that will be for you because obviously you are going to comment on pigeons. At present, we do not have concerns on those at the moment. I suppose that it is again comparing that intensity between the two industries, the two sports. All of those things have an inherent risk. Is the waiting of the risk the problem that you have with the Greyhounds? Yes, and it is the speed, the track design, etc., and the injuries that get reported. Track design established at straight tracks won't make any difference to the way that you would conclude your report, but one of the things you said earlier on was that those are sight animals that are there for their following allure. That is effectively an artificial hair for everybody's understanding. No live rabbits, it is definitely an artificial hair. It is a sight animal, so if all the animals are looking at one lure, has there been any work done on putting two lures on it at the same race, so you are spreading that track out? Not as far as I am aware. I do not know through your. I would point to Sam on this one just because Sam and I actually had a conversation around the lures. For example, what we do know is that at Thornton track the lure runs on the inside of the track, whereas on GBGB tracks the lure runs on the outside. The reason is, again, because they are sight hounds, it enables more of them to see the lure. Sam, do you want to jump in? I understand why they have it on the inside and the outside. The point that I am making is that, because they are sight animals, you reference bunching at particular corners at high speed, that bunching will happen if they are all looking at the same lure. Has there been any work done on double lures? No, there has not been work that has been done best of our knowledge on double lures, but what we have, where the research has looked at, is looking at positioning the lure into the middle of the track that would then prevent some of the bunching that Claire has mentioned. You are talking about the trajectory of the industry as going downhill in terms of its beginning to decline. Are there distinct welfare risks with the industry declining to animals currently? If the industry is declining, does that pose a welfare risk to the animals that are currently in the system? That is a really interesting question. The example that I would give is that we were looking at what an appropriate phase out time would be for the greyhounds currently involved in the industry. We did consider what the appropriate length of time would be. Part of the reason for that was that we felt that if we went for too long a period of time, that might equally have a detrimental impact on greyhound welfare. Once the industry is on notice of a phase and we absolutely did not want that to compromise greyhound welfare during that time, which is why we looked at the number of greyhounds involved and felt confident that we would be able, through partnership working with other charities as well, to re-home that number of greyhounds involved currently within the industry within five years. I think it is a very valid question. In terms of the funding, we are aware that bookmakers funding also comes through online viewing, for example, so there are other aspects to it as well. I will have time for one very quick. Gillie, I apologise for coming back to you. You talked about the individual that you visited where you could not bring any prosecutions against them. There are a couple of things that you might not be able to answer. How did you know that that dog was requiring a visit from you to establish whether or not it's welfare was in jeopardy? That one was, we did receive complaints about the dogs at that property, which is why we went out. At the property, not at the track? Yes, so it's at the property. Surely then that's the responsibility of the person who owns the dog and not the track? Yes, so it's against the person, it's against the owner of the dogs not to do with the track. There is always the possibility of getting people who go into a pastime, whether it's sheepdogs, grey hen racing, there's always going to be the possibility of an individual that is going to do a poor job of looking after that animal. Does that absolutely require the banning of the pastime? I think you would question, so obviously that is one individual, and yes, we know that those dogs are raised at Thornton. The biggest problem we've got is that at Thornton you don't have any public, you don't have a vet there, there's nobody there to warrant a claim, it's a danger to yourself. But it's a public, you can go there, you can walk in, pay your money, walk through the door, so the public can go. The public don't go. If you say that it's public, that gives the impression that it's actually a private meeting you're not allowed in. I think we just need clarity. It's a public event. It's a public event, the public choose not to go. The public can, the public choose not to go too, that's a clear distinction. But again, I come back to the point, surely it's the individual who's holding that animal as opposed to the pastime itself that's the issue. I'm coming back to the point that Mark made, and Mark and I have spoken about this, to find a method of allowing people who genuinely love their dogs want to raise their dogs in a safe way, they don't want anything to happen to their dogs, to allow them to continue without completely banning the sport because these people actually do love their dogs. So yes, you've got the owners of the dogs who love their dogs, etc. You've also, there is still a responsibility that lies with the track itself to provide that environment that guarantees the welfare of the dogs. If you're encouraging people who are involved in that and have a love of that type of sport, you're encouraging them to come to a stadium and run their dogs there. So there's also that ownership and responsibility and accountability on the person who is running that track. Yes, but when they go to that track, if everything else is being catered for, if all the welfare conditions are being catered for, and the owner of Thornton's track last week said, you've got an open invitation in the SSPC, you can go there at any time so you could walk in the door, same as anybody else, if they are covering all of the welfare conditions that would be required in that legal sport as it is at the moment, surely you can't then hold that sport responsible for an individual who is doing something at home that would be inadequate. No, but you've got to make sure that you've got that guarantee and sustainability that everything will be covered on that track. The owner, yes, and how they keep their animals in their home environment, again, those are two separate things, we would still investigate that. So that then goes back to the whole-life experience, so what you're asked to do is you're asking people who have greyhounds to go for the whole-life experience of the dog. Okay, I don't know if we're coming back onto that, I may come back on this. Yes, there we are. I'll move on, thank you. You move on, thank you. Christine Grahame. Itching to get in on this, because I think something we've not emphasised in this interrogation, and I'm looking at the evidence of the dog's trust here, that 85 per cent of greyhounds typically born and raised a year old in the Republic of Ireland. Now, obviously, UK legislation, Scottish legislation, is maintained within this jurisdiction unless, of course, it's an arrangement with the Republic of Ireland. But when I read on in the evidence, forgive me, I'm going to quote some of this, apparently this is under the Irish legislation. A person is permitted to allow a bitch to produce six litters, a maximum of two extra is allowed with permission. Greyhound, being established, are kept in a register by the Irish Coursing Club, and all litters must be registered. However, in the evidence that I've got before me, it states, there's no independent verification of the number born in a litter, little available information about levels of enforcement or monitoring. And the Irish Council against Blood Sports states, it's inherently cruel based as it is, and I'm going to the breeding, I'm emphasising this, overbeading greyhounds, choosing the fastest and getting rid of those who don't make the grade. Many of those too slow to win races are mercilessly killed. Most greyhounds used in the UK are bred in the Republic of Ireland. So my issue, we're focused quite rightly on the track and what conditions there are at home, but let's go right back to the beginning and the condition that these pups are in when they're imported. I'd like you to comment on that, because to me we're getting to somewhere digging deeper into the whole issue of the welfare of these animals. And it might be appropriate to contrast this with horses. I don't know whether you're able to track the breeding of horses that come over from Ireland and do a comparison that might not be relevant. But please, I'd like you to comment on this, because I didn't know that. I did not appreciate that it says here that 70 per cent of the dogs raised in the UK are coming from Ireland. I'm absolutely right. Around about 85 per cent of the greyhounds that race in GB are from Ireland. I think it's an incredibly important point. We know that both Irish and British registers show that at least 10 per cent of greyhounds were unaccounted for after the first year. So the kind of wastage within the industry and the number of dogs that are simply unaccounted for is a huge concern to us as well. Do you liaise with the equivalent Irish PCC or whatever? Do you liaise with them over this issue, SSPCA, RSPCA, can you tell me? So with regards to greyhounds, it's not something that we've spoken in depth with, but puppy trade we have done in quite a lot of detail. It is something that we are focusing on partly through the puppy trade is the whole licensing in Ireland and dog breeding and where those dogs are going to. We also have Dog Trust Ireland. Dog Trust Ireland also have a policy position calling for a face end to greyhound racing. So Dog Trust and Dog Trust Ireland work together very closely on this issue as well. RSPCA, do you have contact with the equivalent in the Republic? Yes, we have spoken to colleagues, the equivalents, and we also were part of the International Greyhound Forum as well, and particularly because we were concerned about the significant proportion of greyhounds that obviously are born in Ireland and also not knowing necessarily a lot around what happens during that first year just because there are huge issues around visibility of greyhounds once they've been bred and once they've been reared. So we have reports and we have some evidence around how those greyhounds are reared, but it is better to say that there is not a lot of visibility, which is of a huge concern. And tell me just how they then get here. Yeah, I've... I mean, it's an organisation that does it, or the individuals just get in touch and purchase them, maybe I don't know. Yeah, I mean, I think, but I think there's a lot where there isn't huge visibility around it, but certainly they would be bought by UK trainers and then transported to race here. And once... Sorry. Sorry, I was just... Sorry, Christine. I was just going to add a point in terms of... I think what happens sometimes is that there may well be puppies that will have been selected already by trainers that are based over here in Great Britain. So they may well bring those dogs over. Often what will happen is that the puppies that have been bred for the purposes of racing will then be reared through their first year, they'll be exposed to experiences that are very much conducive to racing, but what they're not given that experience and exposure to are those parts which are absolutely fundamental to ensuring that dogs grow up to be confident adults and that they are well adaptable to living in a home. But what then will happen after they've been reared is that they will then be sold. So often what we'll see is auctions where Greyhounds are put up for sale and people will bid on them before they're then transferred over to Great Britain, and that's typically by ferry and by road. Well, thank you very much. I'll do a plug for my welfare of dogs, Scotland Bill that I'm putting before you in June, which will, I think, help with this, prevent some of this. Thank you. Eicharan Adam. Thank you, convener, and thank you for your evidence thus far this morning. I'd like to talk a bit about the post-racing life of Greyhounds and what happens to them. We did hear last week from GBGB who noted that they paid towards costs of rehoming and things like that. But hearing from Thornton, it's a very different setup. So we tend to see more dogs coming from homes that they're living in, whereas GBGB, the dogs are in kennels. Can you give us a kind of overview of that post-racing life of a Greyhound and the differences between those two models? Whether you see that there's any huge differences in that and, you know, any cons to that as well? I think that, actually, if you have had a Greyhound that has been exposed to a home environment from a rehoming aspect and a rehabilitation aspect, that is beneficial. What's more challenging, and again, we've had not many, but had some Greyhounds through the rehabilitation process can be more challenging because they've not had that exposure and particularly that crucial early life exposure to general things that they would see in a house whether it's a washing machine and all those different things. If they've been grown up in an environment in a kennel and that's all they've known, then that rehabilitation process can be a little bit more difficult and both ourselves, Dogs Trust, have those mechanisms in place to make sure that you expose them and you get them fit for rehoming. I think from our perspective, the ideal scenario for a Greyhound would be for it to be a family pet kept in the family home and retained by the owner in the family home upon retirement. I think it again was alluded to in the session last week. The reason that GBGB, for example, require Greyhounds to be kenneled and residential kennels throughout their racing career is more for integrity reasons to ensure that they can't be given substances, which will interfere with their racing ability. So, from our perspective, the home environment is always going to be beneficial to dog welfare and that would be the ideal scenario if they are kept as family pets. But our concerns where Greyhounds are kenneled for a large part of their lives are all around the kind of socialisation, habituation, enrichment that they receive during that kennel time and then their ability to adapt to a home environment if they haven't experienced a home environment until that point. Focusing on Thorntons for a moment and how those dogs are kept, is there a secure way of collecting data, for example, for post-racing life for those Greyhounds when it comes to their injuries and behaviours and the quality of their life after their racing? You would hope that anyone running on that track that they would actively want to collect that data to ensure that that Greyhound is having the best life before, during and afterwards. It will be up to them. That's something that we'd, and I think that's where it's been challenging with Thornton because data hasn't been getting collected. So, you cannot see how many dogs are running, average age spans, and what the injury rates have been. You don't have any of that information for Thornton at all. Thank you. I'm Beatrice Wishart. Thanks, convener. I just wonder if I could get some more information from the panel about the conditions in kenneling. Do you have any more information on the conditions? We've heard evidence that there may be significant numbers of dogs being kept and trained in Scotland for racing in England. So I wonder if you could expand on the kenneling side, please. I wonder if this might be one for Sam in terms of involvement in the PAS and Codra practice for GBGB as well. Yeah, thanks Claire. Yeah, so I think in terms of kenneling environments, it is fair to say that if we look at research, these environments absolutely are challenging to many dogs. I think that what is key when we talk about the kenneling of dogs is actually the limitations and restrictions that they place on their ability to express a lot of natural behaviour and also the limitations that it places on their ability to be in contact either with their peers or with people. So I think that in itself is a real concern and recognising that kenneling does post challenges to dogs, the industry has obviously then put in place a specification that is very much intended to protect the welfare of Greyhounds when they're in the kennels which, as we've already mentioned, is around 95% of their time. Now, the ARAS PCA as well as other welfare members of the Greyhound Forum were involved in the development of that particular document. We had concerns throughout the development of that document about its ability to safeguard the welfare of dogs whilst they were in kennels. To the extent that on the final version of that document we did write to GBGB and also to the PSI that was responsible for facilitating and co-ordinating the standard to say that we did not think that it was welfare compatible and certainly not good welfare compatible. We were then told as a result of that that there would be a code of practice that would then help owners and trainers meet the specification within the PSI document. I think that was particularly important because the way in which that specification and document was written was very top level. So it would make requirements upon individuals around, for example, having an environmental enrichment plan in place but it didn't go into any detail about what that actually was and how people could achieve that. So we did end up with a code of practice. I was a contributor to that code of practice but again we still have had concerns around that document. Largely because we don't know to what extent that is actually being delivered to owners and trainers and how they will understand the content of it and how they will deliver it but also how that will be enforced as well. So I think that's very much what our concerns are is that yes, there have been efforts by the industry to try and protect the welfare of greyhounds when in kennels but our position very much would be that actually what is in place in those documents is not sufficient to ensure that each and every greyhound is going to have positive experiences when they're in those kennels. Okay, we've got we're running over time I've got three people who have indicated that they want supplementaries. They need to be short, snap, sharp questions with no preamble please and I'll close you down if you go further than I think is acceptable. I've got Jim Rachel and then Arianna. Thanks, convener. I'll be very quick. Given the concerns that you've talked about the Irish model bringing pups over here and given the fact that we keep conflating the GBGB and the unregulated track that is here in Scotland which we're looking at would you have less concerns if the Scottish track was only racing Scottish bred dogs? That would be a challenging one to be honest of how that would be governed. Again, it comes back to microchipping. Microchipping and to be honest that's been a long call across anyway dogs are involved at that national microchipping register and having that traceability is important and we link that back to the puppy trade as well so traceability. Okay, thank you. Rachel? If there was a ban on greyhound racing as you have proposed how many greyhounds would have to be rehomed and how would this happen? Okay, so we because we don't actually know the numbers in Scotland but we do envisage that at small volumes we would just actively take part of that with partners if to give you an example we can go to a puppy job tomorrow and have to uplift 60 dogs from that site there and then and we already work with others in partners to make sure that we can do that action and work on rehoming them so it would be as part of our our normal operations. The report says 20,000 for yes. The report in terms of the number of dogs leaving the industry every year that can be six to seven thousand dogs leaving the GBGB licensed industry. We know that rehoming organisations home over five thousand dogs as it is every year. We are very able to do that and I think within Scotland we've already got the example of Shawfield recently closed and the dogs have been homed from that track. Okay. Okay. Thanks. Okay, thank you. Allianne. Thanks, convener. According to GBGB retirement data over 1,400 dogs were euthanised within a four-year period 2018-21 due to treatment cost difficulties homing designated unsuitable for homing. This figure excludes dogs that die due to natural causes or were put to sleep on veterinary advice. Do you believe that it is humane or in any way acceptable to euthanised Greyhounds on the above mentioned grounds and have you experienced difficulties homing Greyhounds enough to justify? Certainly from our perspective we've not had difficulties rehoming Greyhounds. You have to if you've got an owner could choose to have their Greyhound rehomed that's within their rights to do that. Whether a vet would choose to do that if that animal is actually perfectly healthy that's where the owner would have challenges. I would say but certainly from a Scottish SPC perspective we would be there and we would take any Greyhound that needed us. We wouldn't anticipate any challenges in rehoming dogs from the industry and we would be committed to doing so as well. Thank you. Last but not least very briefly I'm going to allow me to indulge myself. I'm still concerned about the SSPCA's role in this. You say that you need to be you could only attend the track if there was a complaint. Even though it's a public place and the public are free to enter at any time without any warning why is it then that you're able to attend auction marks and you often see SSPCA officers in auction marks and whatever you visit those and have a walk around and have a chat. Why is it you're able to do that but not able to do that? We will get invited out to those. We also accompany Quality Meet Scotland on some of their visits at invitation. We've not been invited out to Thornton. Okay, but is there anything to stop you going to Thornton? As long as we've got an invitation that is fine. We can't just turn up and there's a reason for us to be there but if we're invited that's a different thing. Okay, so that is a a limitation on your powers. Well, yeah and I think we've also got to be seen that if we go and do something we're there for a reason and quite rightly to have those powers we should only be going to look at something if there's been a complaint raised with us. Okay and given the concerns that you've got would it not be reasonable to think that you might ask to visit Thornton? And have you ever done that? And if not, why not? My understanding from colleagues is that the offer has always been there but we're not the regulatory body for that industry. And same if you went down to regulation that would be local authorities who would be responsible for that. But if you were concerned that there might be animal welfare issues in Thornton and you had the ability to ask Thornton to come and visit surely that would be a reasonable step to take. So as far as I'm aware I don't know if that request has been happened but as far as I'm aware I don't think so at present. Okay. But we would be more than happy to visit. Okay, that's grant. Listen, thank you very much for your evidence today. That's been hugely helpful and I much appreciate you staying here a wee bit longer than was scheduled but certainly that will help us in our deliberations. That concludes our evidence taking and I'd like to thank you for joining us today. And it concludes our meeting in public. We will now move into private session and we'll suspend the meeting for 10 minutes.