Chamber and committees

I do not see any reason not to accede to the request for a change to the name, which might be simpler than the other options.

Both Jackie Dunbar and I recognise the need for a financial penalty in this case. In an effort to reach consensus within the committee, we support the figure agreed, although we take the view that it is certainly at the high end of the range of available sanctions.

Likewise, on the issue of suspension from the chamber, we recognise the need for a penalty of that kind but we voted against the figure of 27 days, given that it was, in our view, extremely high compared with any sanctions in previous cases.

The SAWC report also said that independent tracks might have “some social benefit”. I am not sure whether that was intended to mean social benefit for the dogs or the humans. Can you say whether you view the independent track that remains as having a social benefit? How do you understand that and what do you make of that bit of the report?

I am conscious that there are people in the room who know more about this issue than I do, but I want to ask about the rehoming of dogs. Is it your feeling, on the evidence that you have had, that racing is creating a problem—that is, the rehoming of dogs—that is being left to society to solve?

Is that sustainable going forward? Are the costs and welfare issues around the need to rehome acceptable? Should we allow it?

Thank you.

How do we balance that with animal welfare and which, no pun intended, is top dog?

There will be people in Scotland—and we have heard from them—who race dogs at commercial English tracks. I presume, then, that they will be part of the process of commercial racing that results in dogs perhaps needing to be rehomed, and not all of those dogs will be socialised enough for that. This is a provocative question—I am just looking for your view on it—but are these people not creating a problem that is being left to others to sort out?

I have a quick question about licensing. The focus of our conversation has been very much about the potential licensing of tracks but have you thought about the licensing of kennels? If so, what would that mean?

The convener has touched on the point that there are quite a lot of cross-party groups out there. Would you consider occasional joint meetings with some of the other groups that you have mentioned, as a way round that challenge? I know that other cross-party groups have tried to do that, to avoid stretching MSPs too thinly every time there is a meeting.