National Assembly for Wales

Could I just say, on the letter from Ian Murray about the scrutiny of the chair of S4C, which I think is—? I think it's progress, I think it's a sensible compromise, because we will in effect—the future committee will, in effect—have a voice, pre-appointment or pre-confirmation of a chair of S4C. And I think, were the committee to have no confidence in the candidate, it would be very difficult for either the Welsh Government or the UK Government to ignore that. So, I think I welcome the progress on that.

Yes, I agree with you on that. I think that that is something that we, as a committee, should note, the fact that we welcome it, and also welcome the correspondence we've had from Jakob Engel-Schmidt, who is the culture Minister of Denmark, and the fact that they are looking at and are going to be revising our report on culture shock. I think that is a really significant milestone for the committee—not that Denmark have been busy in any way recently especially, so we really do welcome their notice of this.

[Inaudible.]—declare an interest.

Oh, important. Diolch, Mick.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Cadeirydd. Can I turn to Jackie first of all?

Good morning, bore da—Jackie Price. I head up the greyhound ban Bill team.

And on my left, Holly.

Hi. Holly Miles, Welsh Government legal services.

Diolch yn fawr iawn; you're all very welcome.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Can I just start by thanking Members in advance for all their contributions that we'll go through today, and also the amendments, which we'll deal with as we go through? I just also want to put on record my thanks to the many stakeholder groups and the bodies that have already participated in the scrutiny of this Bill.

So, the lead amendment in this group, as you say, amendment 1, is the Government amendment. It's the only amendment tabled by the Government to the Prohibition of Greyhound Racing (Wales) Bill, and it'll be no surprise then, therefore, that I would ask Members to please support it.

So, during the debate on the general principles, I welcomed the committee's satisfaction with the key provisions in the Bill, which reinforce confidence that the Bill, as introduced, is enforceable and practicable. So, the amendment I've tabled to the Bill seeks to clarify the scope of the offence of being involved in organising greyhound racing in Wales introduced in section 1 of the Bill. It puts beyond doubt the scope of the offence by making it clear that a person will be committing an offence if they are involved in organising greyhound racing that takes place in Wales, or is intended to take place in Wales.

Turning to the other amendments in this group, I cannot support amendments 2 and 3 in the group, tabled by Rhys ab Owen MS. These amendments would widen the scope of the offences introduced by the Bill to include, as I understand it, owners, co-owners, trainers who use or knowingly permit their greyhounds to be used for greyhound racing in Wales, as well as to include attendees of greyhound racing. I'll explain why I can't support these amendments, but I understand why you're putting them forward, hopefully to understand what we're trying to do with this legislation.

So, the policy intention, Rhys, has always been to hold venue operators and those involved in organising greyhound racing in Wales responsible. This is an approach that we believe, Cadeirydd, is proportionate, practical and enforceable. This aligns, by the way, with similar legislation elsewhere. Now, the venue operator or organiser have control over the event and influence over whether or not it takes place. They are the right people to be held accountable, to stop racing at the source and to prevent the activity. So, this approach helps, Rhys, enforcement as, by focusing on those persons in charge and instrumental to the event taking place, the authorities can act effectively without being, by the way, overwhelmed by trying to pursue every owner, every trainer, every service provider or even every spectator.

Now, in its report on the Bill, the Culture, Communications, Welsh Language, Sport and International Relations Committee felt that the scope of offences that target those involved in organised greyhound racing and the operators of stadiums or similar venues was indeed proportionate and enforceable—this committee thought so—and that widening liability could introduce more complexity and consequences without clear evidence of need, and we would agree with that. So, Cadeirydd, I ask Members to support the Government amendment here, but, for those reasons, not to support the amendments moved by Rhys.

Diolch yn fawr, Delyth. Could I thank everyone who has helped me—Mostyn from my office, the clerking team and the legal team here? And your committee, Cadeirydd, have been very helpful. Now, as the Dirprwy Brif Weinidog mentioned, amendments 2 and 3 deal with the question of who can be guilty of the section 1 offence. And to counter what the Dirprwy Brif Weinidog just said, of course law also works as a deterrent, and I think that to expand those who are guilty of the offence would work as a deterrent. You see, my amendment 2 expands those liable to:

'an owner, co-owner or trainer of a greyhound and uses such greyhound, or knowingly permits such greyhound to be used, for greyhound racing in Wales',

and attendees of greyhound racing in Wales. Now, understandably, the word 'attendee' can be very broad, and that's why I provided a legal definition in my amendment 3. Consequently, 'attendee' would mean

'a person attending a greyhound racing event in Wales as a spectator'—

so it's very clear why they're there—or

'a person attending a greyhound racing event in Wales whose principal purpose is to provide services in connection with such an event.'

So, people working at such an event.

Now, why are these amendments required? Well let's listen to the sector, to the real reason why this Bill is here in the first place—what the sector has to say. Now, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home submitted evidence noting that, if the aim is to disincentivise the activity, then everyone who undertakes the activity should be prohibited from doing so. The Cut the Chase coalition called on us to extend the offence to participants, attendees or facilitators, which would include owners and trainers. Public bodies such as the Welsh Local Government Association have voiced their support for widening the scope of the Bill, along with Animal Licensing Wales. And even this committee, Cadeirydd, has previously acknowledged that hare coursing legislation includes attendees. So, that's a counter to what the Dirprwy Brif Weinidog said, that the Government Bill is in line with other legislation. Well, this is also in line with other legislation, such as on hare coursing.

Now, if you're not yet convinced, listen to what the Blue Cross, Dogs Trust, Achub Milgwn Cymru, Hope Rescue and the RSPCA have written about my amendments, and I quote:

'The Cut the Chase coalition supports both amendments'—

2 and 3—

'We remain concerned that if enforcement officers find illegal racing taking place once the Bill comes into force and no person/s present accepts responsibility for having "organised" such racing'—

and that would be difficult, to actually pinpoint who's the organiser—

'such racing and no relevant evidence is available in terms of who organised it such as text messages/email/social media communications etc, then no further action will be taken. Widening the scope to include owners, co-owners, trainers and attendees would therefore prevent this from happening while also acting as a greater deterrent for more individuals in terms of the facilitation of illegal racing if/once the ban comes into force.'

It's clear that those supporting vulnerable greyhounds day in, day out see my amendments as strengthening the Bill, making the Bill clearer, making the Bill more accountable. So, therefore, I ask you to support my amendments. Diolch yn fawr.

Diolch, Gadeirydd. Members will know what I believe and think about this Bill, but if the legislation is to be enacted, then, obviously, I want it to be clearly defined in terms of its scope relating to Wales, and Wales alone. So, I will, on that basis, be supporting amendment No. 1. On amendments 2 and 3, I hear what Rhys ab Owen has said, but, again, I think extending the scope of offences to attendees and owners and trainers et cetera is disproportionate. I think it's a little bit impractical as well, if you're turning up at a certain venue and corralling potentially hundreds of people. I think that runs the risk of clogging up police time and the justice system et cetera. So, I say keep it simple, because if there's a clear focus on the organisers, and you manage to control the organisers, then the event doesn't happen in the first place. I'm therefore not going to support 2 and 3.

Can I just say—? I'll support amendment 1. I understand the logic of amendment 2. Were it to be a sport or an activity that is far more prolific, then I think there might be justification for extending the legislation. But we're talking here, and all the evidence we have, of something that basically is almost a dying sport, that virtually is disappearing, and the only thing keeping it going, essentially, is the gambling element to it. That really seems to be what the commercial base is for it. I think, if that wasn't the case, and it was something that there clearly was much greater activity in it, then I think that might be justified. But I think, on the basis of this, is it necessary? I think probably it isn't, and I think, on that balance, I'd vote against the amendment.

Cadeirydd, I've listened to the discussion with interest. I understand why Rhys is moving the amendments, but I'm in agreement with the points that have been made by your own committee members and, indeed, the conclusions that you came to as a committee. We believe this is a very well-focused piece of legislation: it is on the venue operators and those involved in organised greyhound racing. We believe the approach laid out in this legislation is, as I said, proportionate and practical and enforceable, and that is really important. That is why we would reject, whilst listening and empathising with what you've put forward, Rhys—. This legislation sets out to do a particular thing, and the approach we set out does it in a very well-defined way. So, for those reasons, again, I would urge Members to support our amendment, but not to support those put forward by Rhys.

Diolch yn fawr, Gadeirydd. Amendments 4 and 6 relate to type of track. I really don't understand this part of the legislation, that it only relates to running 'around' a track. That cannot futureproof this Bill if the welfare of greyhounds is at the heart of this Bill. Look at the evidence. Countryside Alliance Wales have highlighted that, at the moment, it's not entirely clear whether it is training in circular as opposed to a linear way that is prohibited and how a track might be understood. The League Against Cruel Sports have detailed that the lack of clear definition creates a potential for loopholes, for example allowing straight-track racing to continue legally. That makes perfect logical sense to me. If you want to bypass this legislation, there's a clear loophole here that you can have greyhound racing on a linear track. Battersea Dogs and Cats Home have stated that

'If the intention is to stop all Greyhound racing, then we would suggest the Bill looks beyond that which is currently undertaken in Wales'.

It seems to me that this legislation has just looked at one particular track in the Caerphilly area, rather than as a whole. I agree with Battersea Dogs and Cats Home that the Bill should go beyond what we have currently in Wales and should futureproof for what might come in the future. That such action is needed is supported by the fact that this committee previously heard that there has been a significant increase in injuries in Australia on a straight, linear track. As the Cut the Chase coalition have written in relation to my amendments:

'We support these amendments as they would act as a preventative measure in terms of the future facilitation of racing on straight and/or other shaped tracks in the future.'

Amendment 5: leave out—on the lure—'activated by mechanical means'. As Battersea Dogs and Cats Home have highlighted, the current wording in the Bill would not necessarily stop impromptu racing in a field around a temporary track with a different type of lure. That my amendment is beneficial is apparent again when considering the comments by the Blue Cross, Dogs Trust, Achub Milgwn Cymru, Hope Rescue, and the RSPCA, who stated, and I quote:

'We are supportive of this amendment as while the current model/s of lure used within greyhound racing are activated by mechanical means, new lures activated by different means could be used and/or invented in the future. As such, we are happy for the reference to "by mechanical means" to be removed via this amendment to make this provision broader.'

As I hope is clear, all three amendments in this group futureproof this legislation.

I previously probed some of these issues with the Cabinet Secretary early on, and I was actually convinced by the replies I had from the Cabinet Secretary—for once, Cabinet Secretary. [Laughter.]

Diolch. [Laughter.]

Genuinely, because they were very similar concerns to the ones outlined by Rhys ab Owen, but I honestly think that the curvature of the track is a defining characteristic, really, in terms of what greyhound racing is and what the Bill is trying to address. I honestly don't think that any straight racing is realistically commercially viable in any way. Likewise, with the mechanical lure, I can't see how else you would do it. If the thinking is in case somebody at some point in the future invents something, well, that brings all legislation into question, really, on that basis. So, as much as I probed these issues myself early on, I'm content with the Bill as it stands in this respect. Therefore, I will not be supporting those amendments.

Diolch. Lee.

I'd agree with that. Chair, just briefly, we did test this in scrutiny with the industry representatives who saw no commercial case at all for running races other than by the current method.

It's been tested.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Again, I've listened with interest to Rhys moving the amendment, but also the contributions of committee members as well. This has indeed been tested in the evidence that you took as a committee as well. There are reasons why we can't support amendments 4, 5 and 6 tabled by Rhys ab Owen, the ones which propose to change the definition of greyhound racing in the Bill. Amendments 4 and 6 change the definition, as Rhys has explained, from being 'around' a track to 'on' a track, and amendment 5 removes the words 'activated by mechanical means', so widening the reference to a lure in the definition of greyhound racing, which comes to the points that your committee members have made today again about what we're trying to do with this legislation and what it is focused on. The definition of greyhound racing currently drafted in the Bill involves setting greyhounds to run around a track, which is, indeed, as Llyr has said—and we've gone through these arguments before—intended to capture the curved nature of conventional greyhound racing tracks, at which the risk of harm and fatality to greyhounds is indeed most prevalent. So, the drafting reflects industry norms and conventions and an assessment of current practices.

Greyhound racing on tracks that are not curved in nature is not undertaken in Wales and, importantly, the risk of such activity emerging is considered to be low, so that is why I cannot support amendments 4 and 6. And similarly, I can't support amendment 5, which widens the scope of the definition of greyhound racing. The definition deliberately captures the types of racing that cause harm to greyhounds, a key part of which is the use of a mechanically activated lure. A lure activated by mechanical means provides a distinction between formal racing or training environments and informal or even recreational activities that may use a different method of lure. So, that, I hope, explains why, while we understand why Rhys is pushing these amendments, we will resist them. We urge committee members to resist them.

Diolch yn fawr, Gadeirydd. With great respect to the Dirprwy Weinidog and Members who have contributed, I just can't see the logic. I just don't see how you can argue that the curvature is the defining characteristic. Well, it is now, and it is now not commercially viable to have a linear track. But I'm sure if the curvature of the track is banned, the linear track will become commercially viable and linear tracks are used within other countries. So, I cannot see the logic with your argument. If the curvature of the track is banned, people will look for another means of greyhound racing, and this is an obvious loophole, which I think is being ignored. Alun Davies can shake his head as much as he wants, but this will happen. But there we are.

Okay—

I participated in the scrutiny—[Inaudible.] We debated these matters then and we are confident in our assumptions and so I'm happy to move to—

Yes, well, you might be confident. I've read the transcript of the evidence you've taken and experts within the field disagree with you, Alun, and people are allowed to disagree with you, Alun. And I think you're wrong when it comes to this matter.

Diolch yn fawr, Gadeirydd. Now, amendment 7 introduces a requirement to review the operation and effect of the Act no later than the end of the five-year period. Amendment 8 would see Welsh Ministers, as soon as practical after the end of the five-year period, lay before Senedd Cymru a report on the operation and effect of this Act during that period, and in preparation for doing so consult with such persons as they consider necessary. And amendment 9 clarifies that the five-year period commences the day after the day on which the Act receives Royal Assent.

You may be thinking: why should we include a requirement for post-implementation review on the face of the Bill? Last week, during the post-legislative review of the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Act 2019, I highlighted the importance of such reviews, a conclusion that the Finance Committee supported. As they noted,

'The Committee believes that all public Bills introduced to the Senedd contain provisions for a post-legislative review.'

In terms of this Bill, the legislation committee heard from the Cabinet Secretary that a review will be undertaken within five years of commencement, with evaluation activity beginning from 12 months after the Bill comes into force. The Cabinet Secretary also commented that a post-implementation review will play a key role in monitoring the effects and impacts of the ban.

However, as the legislation committee noted, the Bill does not include a statutory requirement for such a post-implementation review. Therefore, there is no guarantee that a future Welsh Government would carry out such a review. My amendment tackles this issue head on. Indeed, as the Cut the Chase coalition stated in relation to my amendments 7, 8 and 9, having it on the face of the Bill would guarantee that it happens, regardless as to who forms the next Welsh Government. Diolch.

Diolch yn fawr. I think it's always good practice to periodically review legislation, regardless of one's personal opinions of that particular piece of legislation. So, I'll happily support this group of amendments from Rhys ab Owen, but maybe Rhys could just explain to me, in closing on this group, the rationale behind asking for the evaluation to begin 12 months in, but then for the review not necessarily to happen until up to five years later. It's not a big issue, but I just wonder what the thinking is behind that. Diolch.

I agree that there should be a system of reviews of legislation periodically. We all have in mind pieces of legislation that probably should have been reviewed, and now things need to change and so on. If we do this, every piece of legislation that we pass should then have a section saying there's a review, et cetera. I think it's a broader issue of policy, both for Government and for the Senedd, in terms of all legislation. I just think it distorts the matter to put it into one piece of legislation, whereas you don't for all the others, when, in fact, the actual principle is that we should have the capacity, and maybe we will have within the larger Senedd as well, to be able to start doing that in the next Senedd as well. But for the sake of simplicity and clarity within legislation, I think, probably, it's not good practice for it to go into the legislation.

Thank you. As we've heard, amendments 7 and 8 would add requirements for reviewing the legislation once enacted to the face of the Bill. The Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee made a recommendation that the Government should amend the Bill to provide for such a review. In my response to the committee and this recommendation, I set out, in what I think was a fair and considered rationale that rejected that recommendation, why, actually, there would indeed be a review. I've explained this to the committee.

In line with good practice, there will be a review to assess the impact of the ban and to identify any consequences. In my response to the LJC committee, I reiterated the commitment in the Bill's explanatory memorandum. It's laid out very clearly that this review will be done no later than five years after the legislation comes into force.

I note the points made by Mick Antoniw, committee member and former Counsel General, as well, that there's probably a wider policy issue here about how you apply this to wider legislation. But the commitment is clear in the explanatory memorandum, I've laid it out to the LJC committee as well, the review will happen. On that basis, I would urge the committee not to support amendment 9, because in line with good practice there will indeed be a review, and that review will take place no later than five years after the legislation comes into force.

Diolch yn fawr, Gadeirydd. I touched on it already, but, of course, the Dirprwy Brif Weinidog cannot make that guarantee that the review will take place.

To reply to Mick, well, it should be in every legislation. I think we should start with this one, and it should be part of every legislation that there should be post-legislation review. We don't do enough of that in this Senedd. Bills are passed here and there is not enough—. It's as if the scrutiny finishes when the legislation is passed, and that should be enshrined within the legislation.

With regard to Llyr's point, I think we start the research after 12 months, when the Act has been embedded, and see the impact during the period, and then publish after five years, when we see and evaluate enough of what has happened and the impact of the legislation.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. I'm going to speak to group 4 of the amendments, and with amendment 11 being the lead amendment in this group. This group of amendments is focused specifically on how the Bill operates during the transition period prior to prohibition. It does not address the wider evidential assessments contained in later groups, but it instead concerns the practical, regulatory and legal arrangements that must be in place while greyhound racing remains lawful.

As the Bill is currently drafted, it moves directly from a lawful, regulated activity to prohibition without setting out a clear statutory framework or governing the period in between. Legislation of this scale does not operate in theory; it operates in the real world, affecting animals, regulators, local authorities, workers and communities. Without a transitional framework, the Bill risks creating a regulatory gap at precisely the point when oversight is needed the most.

Amendment 11 requires Welsh Ministers to introduce interim regulations on greyhound racing in Wales to come into force within six months of Royal Assent and to remain in place until the appointed date of prohibition. The principle here is simple: if greyhound racing is to continue for any period before prohibition, it must do so within a clear and enforceable regulatory framework. Removing regulation before prohibition takes effect risks poor animal welfare outcomes, confusion for enforcement bodies, and displacement activity into unregulated or informal settings, where standards are likely to be lower.

This amendment is also about legal certainty. Local authorities, inspectors and animal welfare organisations need to know what rules apply during the transition, who is responsible for enforcement, and what standards must be met. Good legislation provides a certainty on the face of the Bill rather than relying on informal guidance or assumption. If the purpose of this Bill is to protect animal welfare, then ensuring the effectiveness of regulation during the transition is essential.

Amendment 12 introduces a requirement for Welsh Ministers to review the effectiveness of the interim regulation arrangements within two years and publish and lay a review before the Senedd. This is a straightforward accountability measure, and if the arrangements are working as intended, the evidence should be available to Members. If they are not, the Senedd should be aware and able to respond accordingly.

Amendments 19 and 20 amend the proposed timetable for prohibition. This is not about frustrating the Bill's intent; it reflects the reality that prohibition requires adequate preparation, including enforcement capacity, rehoming arrangements, and clarity for those affected. Rushing this process risks consequences that could ultimately undermine animal welfare and public confidence. Extending the timetable allows the transition to be more meaningful in law in an orderly and humane way.

Other amendments in this group are technical and consequential, and taken together, all these amendments, I believe, strengthen the Bill, making it clearer, more workable, and more responsible in practice, and I urge Members to support the amendments in this group.

My preference has always been, from the start, enhanced regulation or licensing, which is, I think, what the Government should have done in the first place. Certainly, some of the stakeholders that contributed to our considerations of this Bill as a committee had expected that to happen as well. And that phased approach, of course, could have tested compliance; it could have improved animal welfare without the introduction of the wider ban.

If, after time, it was then demonstrated that that hadn't worked, then the option of an outright ban is still there, and, under those circumstances, would also probably be more justified. Because I honestly feel that there are—and we've picked up on this as a committee—gaps in the evidence base for an immediate ban. I think that the approach outlined in the amendments is worthy of support.

I also believe that the other couple of amendments there about changing the implementation date would allow for further consideration of the implications, particularly with reference to a discussion we're going to have later on about comprehensive impact assessment et cetera. I think it's merited, and therefore I will be supporting these amendments.

I understand the points that Llyr has made in terms of the direction the legislation has taken and so on, but in terms of the legislation that we have in front of us, the question, for me, is really just one of proportionality. I think that the circumstances that we're in now, to go down through this process, to then develop regulations, to then all the consultation, to then all the processes that will need to be in place for the enforcement, for the establishment of it, for the cost of it, and bearing in mind that we have the one track now, there's a very clear indicator in terms of what the impact of this legislation will be. I think if it was a far more prolific sport, that might be just, but I think, in these circumstances, proportionality and cost and so on are valid. So, I'm going to vote against this.

Diolch, Gadeirydd. Again, I listened with interest to the different views of committee members and to the mover of the amendment as well, and I think this comes again back to the purpose and the focus of this legislation in front of us.

I can't support, James, your amendments 11 and 12, which would make that provision for transitional arrangements for the regulation of greyhound racing in Wales in an interim period before a prohibition on racing comes into force. I note the comments made by the committee member Mick Antoniw in this respect as well. Regulating greyhound racing in Wales detracts from this Government's intent to bring forward a ban as soon as practically possible, and it leaves greyhounds at risk of injury, or death indeed, for a longer period.

One active greyhound racing stadium remains in Wales, which is GBGB-affiliated, and is already regulated by the industry standards. Setting up an infrastructure for further regulation and related enforcement powers for an interim period would be disproportionate, and I'm reflecting here on the comments made by Mick Antoniw in this regard as well.

Let me just say as well that, in spite of GBGB standards and additional welfare measures applied throughout the industry, dogs do continue to be harmed whilst racing, so consequently, regulation at this stage would add no value. The decision to ban greyhound racing was taken as a measure to prevent further harm and it is a decision driven by those strong welfare and ethical concerns, reflecting the Welsh Government's commitment to prioritising animal welfare. As I cannot support these amendments, I also cannot support the related amendments 15 and 16, which would bring these provisions for transitional arrangements for regulation into force on the day after the Bill receives Royal Assent.

And finally, I cannot support amendments 19 and 20 tabled by James. Amendment 19 postpones the earliest date on which the Act can come into force from 1 April 2027 to 1 October 2028. Amendment 20 postpones the latest date on which the Act can come into force from 1 April 2030 to 1 October 2031. The Member's intention may be to allow time for the transitional arrangements suggested by amendments 11 and 12. But as I've set out, the policy intention is for a prohibition on greyhound racing in Wales to come into force as soon as practically possible. This has been identified as 12 months after Royal Assent. Therefore, the Bill provides that it will be no sooner than 1 April 2027. This is important, because this lead-in time will enable third sector organisations to manage the rehoming of dogs displaced because of the ban. It also gives the owners of the Valley greyhound stadium time to wind down the activity and to consider alternative options for the site. This approach is, of course, supported by the implementation group. So, for those reasons, I cannot support those amendments put forward by James.

Thank you, Cadeirydd, and thank you, Llyr, for your support for the amendments. I don't understand the arguments made by other Members. I think this is more ideologically driven rather than actually that the fact of the matter is that there need to be some transitional arrangements put in place. It will damage animal welfare. It is going to damage the community there if transitional arrangements aren't put in place, and I'm very disappointed that the Welsh Government has taken this view and has whipped its Members to do the same.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Thank you very much. I will be speaking to group 5 of the amendments, with amendment 13 being the lead amendment in this group. This group is concerned specifically with ensuring that this decision to commence prohibition is taken on a sound evidential and legal footing. These amendments do not reopen the wider policy debate about whether prohibition should occur, rather they should ensure that any decision to implement is informed by proportionate and lawful consultation.

Amendment 13 requires Welsh Ministers to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the economic and social impact of prohibiting greyhound racing in Wales before appointing a commencement date. The assessment must consider the impact on those directly and indirectly employed in the industry, the effects on local economies and communities, and the potential cost to the public sector and the animal welfare consequences that may arise from displacement or cessation.

These are not abstract concerns, they have already been identified in evidence presented to the Senedd, including a report to this committee and also to other committees within the Senedd. The amendment also requires Welsh Ministers to consult those with relevant experience and expertise, including industry participants, local authorities and animal welfare organisations. Policy that is not grounded in consultation and real-world evidence risks being ineffective or counterproductive. Importantly, the assessment must be published and laid before the Senedd at least three months before a prohibition date is appointed, ensuring that Members have the opportunity to scrutinise the evidence before an irreversible step is taken.

Amendment 14 complements this by requiring a formal human rights assessment. The Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee has already raised concerns about compatibility with article 1 of the first protocol of the European convention on human rights, proportionality and whether less intrusive alternatives could achieve the same objective. This amendment requires Welsh Ministers to address those issues directly and to take account of the committee's analysis and recommendations. These are legal questions that cannot be wished away. Ignoring them increases the risk of a successful legal challenge and undermines confidence in this legislation. Requiring a published assessment before commencement ensures transparency and strengthens the legal robustness of this Bill.

Chair, these amendments do not prevent prohibition. They ensure that, if prohibition is commenced, it is done on the basis of evidence, consultation and respect for legal obligations. That is the responsibility of law making, and I urge Members to support group 5 and the amendments presented today. Diolch.

Well, as I mentioned during the general principles debate, an ethical basis alone doesn't necessarily make for good legislation. It has to be evidence based, proportionate and effective. And as the committee outlined in our Stage 1 report, the evidence base for this Bill is, to say the least, highly contentious; for many, maybe, insufficiently robust. On data, the committee received extensive and conflicting evidence on welfare standards within the greyhound racing industry, and the Government has already acknowledged that maybe you should have done more in that space.

We also know that the main evidence base used to justify this Bill was the 2023 consultation on the regulation of animal welfare establishments, with just one question on banning greyhound racing. And despite these concerns being raised about evidence at the time, the Government hasn't conducted sufficiently, I believe, a comprehensive impact assessment, as would be expected for this kind of legislation, somewhat compounded, maybe, by the truncated scrutiny period as well for this Bill. But regardless of where you stand on the principle of a ban, we should all strive to make sure that the very highest standards are attained in terms of legislative process and rigour, and, unfortunately, I feel that, without these impact assessments, then maybe we don't meet that standard. So, I will be supporting amendments 13 and 17.

I'm not entirely convinced of the need for a separate human rights assessment. I heard what the Member has said. I'm looking forward to hearing what the Cabinet Secretary has to say in response, and that will probably help me make my mind up. Diolch. 

Diolch. Mick.

Well, just to say, I'm almost tempted on it, because I'm so enthused now by the new-found support  for and endorsement by the Conservatives of the Human Rights Act 1998 and so on, and the human rights convention. [Laughter.]

I'm an independent now.

Can I say it's very encouraging to know that the scales have fallen from the eyes on this, and we look forward to your support in the future? [Laughter.]

But that aside, I see this as mainly a delaying exercise, and I will vote against these. Just on that point, of course, the Counsel General and the Llywydd will have to declare competence on that, so unless the Cabinet Secretary has any view or any concerns around that, I'm satisfied that this legislation won't proceed unless there is that competence confirmation.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Cadeirydd. I can't support amendment 13, tabled by James Evans, which would require Welsh Ministers to assess the economic and social impact of the Bill and to report on the assessment. And I'll explain why.

The explanatory memorandum and the regulatory impact assessment were laid alongside the Bill, and the integrated impact assessments have been published. A detailed socioeconomic duty assessment has been completed, and a summary is included in the explanatory memorandum. Now, these assessments examine the costs, the benefits, and the economic and social impacts. 

I responded, Cadeirydd, to the related recommendation by this committee—the Culture, Welsh Language, Sport and International Relations Committee—and I advised—and we've discussed this before—that the integrated impact assessment, and the regulatory impact assessment, will be updated ahead of Stage 3, to reflect any additional information received since the Bill's introduction.

And important in this are the reports from the implementation group. So, reports from the implementation group, along with any updated impact assessments, will be published on the Welsh Government website, and, to stress, the committee will also be notified when these are available. 

I cannot support amendment 14 by James Evans MS, which requires Welsh Ministers to undertake a human rights assessment of the impacts that the Act will have on those affected, although I welcome his strident support of human rights principles and legislation.

Bill provisions are always subject to a thorough assessment of legislative competence, including convention rights, before they are introduced. The outcome of the Welsh Government's assessment of the Bill's compatibility with convention rights, at introduction, is included in the explanatory memorandum that accompanies the Bill. 

During determination, the Llywydd determined that the provisions of the Bill would be within the legislative competence of the Senedd. I am satisfied that the Bill is compatible with the European convention on human rights, including article 1 of protocol 1, and article 8. I committed in correspondence to the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee to update the equality, diversity, inclusion and the human rights assessment, which will be reflected in the regulatory impact assessment ahead of Stage 3.

And, for that reason, I also cannot support related amendments 17 and 18, which provide that the new sections to be added to the Bill related to amendments 13 and 14 will come into force the day after the legislation receives Royal Assent.

Thank you, Cadeirydd. I like the political spin that was put on that article of human rights. Until we have a British version available, we must use the frameworks that are available to us. I will say I'm disappointed in the Cabinet Secretary's response, saying we are going to have updated assessments ahead of Stage 3. I would have thought that these would have been done before the Bill's introduction. That is the way that we'd hope the legislation should be done. Yet again, this legislation has been rushed. It's been pushed through, I think, without the proper evidence base, and I will make sure these go to a vote, Cadeirydd. I'm not going to withdraw them, because I think it's very important that we have these in place, because I don't trust the Welsh Government to bring them before Stage 3, if they couldn't have done it at general principles or at Stage 2.

I'm sure everyone is very pleased that this is my last contribution this morning.

Amendment 10, probably contrary to what James Evans has tabled, aims to bring forward the enforcement of this Act. It is my feeling that, in this legislation as in other legislation, Welsh Government moves too slowly. Now, I want to bring forward the enforcement to 1 April 2027, not as an April Fool's joke for anyone, but I think that is a good time to bring the Act into force and be featured on the face of the Bill as the commencement date for the ban. Blue Cross, Dogs Trust, Achub Milgwn Cymru, Hope Rescue and RSPCA have written in support of this amendment, saying, 'This is what we are also calling for.' They are the ones who are preparing to rehome the dogs affected. So, any argument that there isn't capacity is just clearly flawed and wrong.

As the committee may be aware, to support the rehoming, rehabilitation and treatment of any dogs impacted by the end of greyhound racing in Wales, the Wales greyhound partnership was established shortly after the ban was announced in February 2025. They are comprised of nine different animal welfare organisations, and they are currently preparing to rehome up to 258 dogs, every two months, following the implementation of a ban, if required.

Also, the time frame I'm proposing is quite normal. It's been done before. For example, other tracks closed have been wound down in less than a year, such as in Swindon, which ceased in December 2025 following only a nine-month period. Ending greyhound racing within a year will give both the rescue sector and the industry a definitive and realistic deadline to work towards.

As Battersea Dogs and Cats Home highlighted, with only one track in Wales and an implementation group already working, it is unclear why a maximum of three years will be needed for the Bill to come into force. I agree again with Battersea Dogs and Cats Home—I cannot see why we need three years to bring this legislation into force. Not only is it unclear, but the evidence proves that the three-year window is unnecessary. Diolch yn fawr.

I've already mentioned the need for further consideration around some of the implications of this Bill for Wales, and I think bringing forward the implementation window would just add to the way that this is being pushed through. Giving the Government flexibility within a clear window, I think, allows for the Act to come into force as and when everything is ready. It's not for us to say that now. I think Ministers in the future will be best placed to decide, as long as there are clear parameters in terms of the window being offered. That is already achieved in the Bill, so I won't be supporting this amendment.

Just to say, I find it a very tempting amendment. I accept—. I listened carefully to what Llyr has said. I think I'll just reserve my position until I hear what the Cabinet Secretary says.

That's very exciting. Okay. [Laughter.] Some drama and some jeopardy at last. Okay, on that note—

Cadeirydd, we've discussed—[Interruption.]

Okay, if we can hear the Dirprwy Brif Weinidog.

We've discussed before the reasons why we've established the implementation group, to consider things such as not only the winding down of the site, but the purposeful use of the site afterwards, and also rehoming and other aspects, which I'll turn to in a moment. Now, Rhys ab Owen's amendment 10 cuts across the current implementation period described in the Bill, which is, just to reiterate to the committee, and to Mick as well, of no sooner than 1 April 2027—although that is as soon as it could be done; it could be done from that date—but no later than 1 April 2030. And the amendment changes it to being no later than 1 April 2027. So, it brings it forward right to the front end of that.

Now, I absolutely understand the principle of the prohibition of greyhound racing in Wales coming into force as early as possible. So, in order to reduce harm to greyhounds, the current lead-in time, as drafted in the Bill, gives that time for those stakeholders—some of those described, but also all the stakeholders involved—to adjust to mitigate the impact of the prohibition on the rehoming and the welfare sector, on the greyhounds and their owners and trainers, and on the racing industry, and also the wider community and, of course, the purposeful future use of that site. I just want to reiterate to Members that, on that implementation group, there is also the local authority on there as well, who are, along with the owners, very concerned with making sure that, as activities wind down, subject to this legislation being passed, a good and purposeful use for that site is found and that it is not left unused and unloved and derelict.

So, I note that, in the report of this committee, they consider the proposed lead-in period indeed to be sensible. We think it is sensible and practicable, and it will be informed by the deliberations of that stakeholder group—the implementation group. But I therefore also reiterate my confirmation that the intention is that the Bill will be brought into force, subject to the Senedd's deliberations, and also that the provisions are brought forward at the earliest practical opportunity within the time frame described within the legislation. We think that is sensible and practical and allows it to be properly informed by all those stakeholders.

I'm sure we all know, with the current time frame, it would be much closer to 2030 than 2027 because of the pedestrian pace of these matters. Members have mentioned—Mick Antoniw mentioned—that this is a dying sport. Other Members have mentioned that it's not—. Alun mentioned that it's not a widely supported sport. The fact that we allow one track to delay the implementation—what happens at one track to delay the implementation—of this Bill, to me, makes no sense whatsoever. If the purpose of this Bill is the welfare of greyhounds, then we need to bring the Bill forward and enforce that Bill sooner rather than later. Diolch yn fawr.