Chamber and committees

Mike Buckley, your report contains a number of recommendations, and I want to focus on two of them. On chemical regulations, we have two systems working in parallel, at the moment. There is the UK’s system, and there is the EU’s registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—REACH—scheme. Then there is the EU emissions trading scheme, in which we have two systems that relate to each other but are not part of a single market in emissions trading. There are some issues with that because of market size, efficiency and everything else. Could you unpack what specific changes you think are achievable through a TCA renegotiation on those two areas? If David Hamilton and Peter Holmes are interested in chipping in on that, I will take their views as well.

Yes, and also ETS alignment more broadly—and potentially integration.

That came across well in your previous answer on the willingness to get in the room, come with an agenda and open up to that dialogue. Is the door open? If there is a willingness to talk about alignment with the ETS or any other detailed policy area, can the right people from the UK get into the room at European level—even if it is a room next door, as you say—start to bring an agenda into those conversations and build up that trust informally?

To bring it back to the question, the point that you are making is that there is a question about the extent to which it is worth investing in further alignment when the fundamental uncertainty exists that a new Government could come in and just rip it up or there could be a change in thinking.

Peter Holmes or David Hamilton, does either of you want to come in on my initial question?

Does that require a TCA renegotiation of issues around alignment or negotiation of, say, a Europe-wide ETS, or can that happen separately if both parties are willing to enter into that process?

I should declare that I have a member’s bill proposal for a “Prohibition of Greyhound Racing (Scotland) Bill”, which I am currently working on. I am an honorary associate member of the British Veterinary Association and I am also a beekeeper, which is probably of less relevance to today’s session—but you never know, it may come up.

Where do you get your evidence from as a minister? You have an official there who is a long-qualified vet and has led a number of pieces of animal welfare legislation through the Parliament. The information that you have received about Thornton is from a friend, I think you said. I have quite strong anecdotal evidence that there are dogs that race at Thornton that are housed in a shed down at Seafield, so we could pop out at lunchtime and have a look at that. That could be good evidence, if you like.

I am interested in how we break through the anecdotal nature of this evidence and get clear evidence about the nature of the risks of licensed and unlicensed tracks and, therefore, the case for reform. That might be licensing—although it appears that you are undecided about whether licensing has a role—or a phase out, which is obviously being proposed in my member’s bill. Are you open to evidence or is it fixed now? You have had the letter and that is it?

I think that you said earlier that you believe, through the evidence that you have heard, that there is a lesser scale of gambling at Thornton. What difference does that make to a dog?

If you are licensing an activity that you know pretty well involves a certain level of injuries and deaths, are you not licensing animal cruelty and saying, “Yes, we will continue doing this because it is worth monitoring”?

Will licensing reduce the number of serious injuries and deaths? I have a greyhound. He goes out for runs occasionally in a field or whatever and he might get a cut here and there, but the injuries that he had when he was racing, such as a broken hock, were far more significant. We see that sort of thing with greyhounds all the time. What will licensing do to prevent those catastrophic injuries and, in some cases, dogs being put down? I can see that having a vet on site to help clear up after an accident or treat a dog might be useful, but I am struggling to see how licensing will fundamentally change the picture that we have, which is that, when dogs are racing around a track at 40mph, they collide into each other and break their legs or suffer from a range of injuries, which can result in amputations and so on. What will licensing do to bring down the rate of those catastrophic injuries?