Culture, Communications, Welsh Language, Sport, and International Relations Committee

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Gadeirydd. Huw Irranca-Davies, Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs, with responsibility for this legislation. I have my officials with me. Shall I introduce them, or—

Well, James, would you like to introduce yourself?

Diolch. James Morris, I'm head of animal health and welfare, Welsh Government. I'm also the Bill facilitator.

Thank you so much. Jackie.

Good morning. Jackie Price. I'm the head of the actual Bill team.

Thank you. Elizabeth.

Good morning. Elizabeth Thomas from Welsh Government legal services.

You're all very welcome. We'll go straight into questions, if that's all right. Could I ask you first, please, why you believe it's necessary to ban greyhound racing?

As we laid out on the floor of the Senedd yesterday, we think that there's a compelling case, both on animal welfare grounds, but also on some of the ethical arguments that we've heard. It's made more substantial by the results of the consultation, where we had thousands upon thousands of responses, and where 65 per cent of those made clear their support for a phased ban.

Also, the debates that we've had here in the Senedd, where there was clear cross-party support; not unanimous, but cross-party support—[Interruption.]

Forgive me one moment. I think that Llyr has lost the sound. Could we just take a quick technical break for a minute? We will go into private just to sort the sound issue.

Croeso nôl. Welcome back. We're going to go back, and I'll ask the Deputy First Minister if he could start his response again on why he believes that it would be necessary to ban greyhound racing.

Thank you very much, Chair. The reason that we are moving towards a prohibition on greyhound racing is because of a number of factors. They include the response to the consultation, where we had thousands of responses, and the overwhelming response—65 per cent of the respondents supported a move to a prohibition, a phased ban, on greyhound racing—but it's also a reflection of the debates we've had here in the Senedd, including earlier this year where there was a clear, not unanimous, cross-party support from Senedd Members for moving to a prohibition as well as part of our wider moves on animal welfare. But it is ethical and also animal welfare considerations. What we know from the evidence is we still have a large and concerning number both of fatalities and of injuries on licensed greyhound tracks. So, for all of those reasons, moving towards a prohibition on greyhound racing—while it's also aligned alongside the wider moves we are doing on licensing and regulation of animal welfare establishments and so on—is the right approach. So, those are the reasons why we were moving to a ban on racing, should it have the backing of the Senedd.

Thank you for that. In terms of why you think it would be the better course of action to move straight to a ban, rather than regulating the racing through licensing first, what was the process, please, that made you decide that, or the decision making that you followed?

I think it's because of those factors that I mentioned earlier on: the compelling mood here within the Senedd; the evidence of the fatalities and the injuries, even within licensed tracks and licensed racing; also the fact that while recognising the steps that have been made in licensed tracks to try and improve animal welfare with greyhound racing, we are still seeing high levels of fatalities and injuries. And also, even on the track here, the one remaining track within Wales, Valley stadium, which has moved to licensing more recently than other tracks around the UK—which was welcome, because coming within that licensing regime means standards in the work that they do with animal welfare—that has actually led to an increase in the number of races. So, it's gone from one to three race days per week there. So, you can see that, with an increased number of races within that single track, if it follows in line with the patterns across the wider tracks throughout England as well, we will see increasing numbers or an increasing propensity towards injuries and fatalities as well.

So, for all of those reasons, we think a ban is the right and fair and proportionate way to make sure that we deal with the animal welfare considerations, that we respond to the ethical considerations that have been expressed both by Senedd Members and the wider responses to the consultation, and also, I have to say, the pretty much unanimous support of all the animal welfare organisations out there in Wales who have also put forward evidence and their calls for a prohibition on greyhound racing.

Thank you. And finally—. Oh, forgive me, Jackie, did you want to come in?

If I may.

Yes.

Before they were a Greyhound Board of Great Britain affiliated track, yes, us licensing it would have raised the standards. But GBGB have done that now, and the licensing conditions that they put down are better, as the Deputy First Minister has said—it's just there are still fatalities. The next step then would be—. We could license, but we would just be mirroring what's already happened through the GBGB work.

And one of our concerns here as well is, as you're very aware, we have a wider approach to animal welfare in Wales, which I think is exceptionally progressive and is doing great work. And we had the considerations on wider licensing and regulation as well, which might add to what we're doing here in our approach towards a ban. But the hard reality is that the commercialisation of licensed greyhound tracks could well lead to increased activity. We're seeing it at the Valley stadium, we're seeing it at other stadiums. There are some stadiums, by the way, which are closing because of decline in demand. But in others, the commercial activity around greyhound licensing is leading to more racing. Well, more racing, based on everything that we know of the level of fatalities and injuries, will inevitably, it seems, lead to more of those. So, that's why a ban, as part of our wider animal licensing regulation, we think is fair and proportionate.

Thank you for that. I think Llyr wants to come in here.

Yes, diolch. Just on the regulation, or not, as it were, and moving straight to a ban, there has been a post-implementation review in England, of course, of regulation there, and it concluded that the regulations, and I quote,

'appear to have been successful'.

So, do you not agree with that post-implementation review?

So, Llyr, where we would give credit to the licensing regime, and we welcome the fact, by the way, that the Valley stadium moved into licensing, away from being an independent track outside of the licensing regime—. That does mean that there are improvements, with the support of GBGB, in the welfare of animals, including things like rehoming, which have been done with their engagement with animal welfare charities and so on. But we cannot get away from the simple, unassailable fact that we have continuing injuries and fatalities on these tracks, which is to the detriment of the animal welfare considerations of greyhounds. Racing greyhounds are being injured running around the tracks, running around bends, and are dying. So, regardless of our welcome of the approach to licensing, the improvements in engagement with animal welfare charities, it is notable, Llyr, that all of those animal welfare organisations are supporting the call for a prohibition on greyhound racing, because we are not ending those injuries and fatalities that are a direct result of racing greyhounds.

I'll just quote to you what Battersea Dogs and Cats Home said in the response—one of the few opportunities in terms of consultation that everybody's had. They said that

'It is conventional for bans to be introduced following the failure of regulatory solutions. In the case of Greyhound racing in Wales, regulatory solutions have never been attempted, so it is hard for anyone to say with certainty whether a regulatory framework would work.'

Now, that's obviously—. I imagine that they would be in favour of a ban, but—

Just to say, the post-implementation review showed also the failures to address these fundamental issues of the injuries and the fatalities. So, it was a nuanced approach there. And we do recognise, by the way—and I'll repeat this—that the work that's been done by GBGB and licensing and in engagement with the animal welfare charities, and the efforts that they made with things like rehoming, the medical support on tracks and so on, has been an improvement from where it was. But we still have an inordinate number of injuries and fatalities across tracks in England and Wales. James, I don't know if you wanted to add to that.

Yes. The response from Battersea was really useful to the consultation, and we've been working with them, and we'll continue to work with them through the implementation group, as they have a seat at that as well.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Lee.

Lee wants to come in.

I just want to clarify your grounds from a point you made earlier. You said that better regulation leads to more racing, and more racing per se is a bad thing. So, essentially, the Government's case is an ethical one. It does not believe that dogs should be raced for sport.

It's ethical and animal welfare. Animal welfare considerations are because of, as I mentioned, Lee, the fatalities and the injuries, but there are also ethical considerations about the exploitation and commodification of animals for sport and entertainment in greyhound racing. But it's linked to the fatalities and the injuries.

Thank you.

Just finally from me for now, then, on that animal welfare point, it has been raised by some that the Animal Welfare Act 2006 does include provisions on animal welfare, including provisions allowing for action to be taken when there's evidence of failure to provide for an animal's welfare needs. Is it the view of the Government that that is not sufficient, then?

That's correct. We do not have any specific legislation in relation to greyhounds in the context of everything we just discussed now in the opening remarks. The Animal Welfare Act does provide general protections, but it does not have a dedicated framework for regulating greyhound racing as an activity. Now, we have the powers and the competence here in Wales to act on this, and for the very issues that we identified here, both the ethical and animal welfare considerations, we need something very specific to deal with greyhound racing, and we've tried within the legislation, then, to define exactly what we mean by that, and how we actually move to a ban.

Thank you very much for that. We'll move on to Mick.

Minister, the Scottish Government had a look at this as well, with mixed results. Has there been any contact with those involved in legislation in Scotland, and are there any lessons that have been learnt from that?

Yes, we are engaging with our colleagues in Scotland as well. As you know, they have proposals for legislation. Jackie, I don't know if you want to add on the engagement with Scotland, the lessons that we're learning?

Yes, the drafters have engaged with us, but you need to bear in mind that that Bill is working its way through the process as well, so it's not actually enacted yet. We have been taking a look at what they've put in their Bill, whether we think it would apply here, whether it's something that we would want to replicate. Legal have done the same—you've looked at the Scottish Bill as well. And where we think it's appropriate we have mirrored, and where we don't think it's appropriate, as is our right, we've drafted our own in our own words.

On the evidence, of course, the data and the evidence is available—available to Scottish Government, and available to us as well. I noticed that the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission referred to actually a paucity of evidence, and of course reading through the evidence, a lot of the evidence is very specific, from vested interests. I noticed some of the evidence basically indicated very low levels of injury, but when you put that within the perspective of the number of times the dogs were actually racing, the increased number of times, the actual percentage has increased quite substantially. I think the RSPCA made comments about that, that you have to be very cautious in terms of how you interpret the evidence. What would you say is the level of evidence available to justify this legislation in terms of the data and extent to which that data is solid, robust and can be relied upon?

I think one of the sources of data that we go to is GBGB's own data analysis, which does show there are differences from year to year, but there is still a very high level of injuries sustained through racing, particularly on tracks with bends—it's a particular risk factor—but also that even in the last year the number of fatalities, which is not insignificant, has increased. So, therein lies the rub: that even with well-licensed, well-regulated tracks within a licensed system, the injuries and fatalities continue, and the fatalities have gone up last year. So, you know, we commend the approach that has been taken by GBGB in terms of trying to improve, literally, the track record, but the hard facts are their own data shows the high levels of injuries and the rise last year in levels of fatalities. For us, that is unacceptable in terms of animal welfare considerations.

Thank you for that. Just on the legislation generally, on the proposed Bill, the actual scope of it, obviously the key objective is to rely on that data and then to basically implement a prohibition of greyhound racing, but the broader issue of the welfare of the dogs themselves is a sort of secondary part of that. Is there scope within this Bill, do you think, in terms of the broader interests of dogs and so on—dogs that have been injured, what happens to them afterwards and so on? What are your thoughts on the scope? Is it one that is to be considerably limited, or is the general, broader welfare something to become a focal point for this Bill as well?

It's such a good question. This Bill is focused very much on the description of what we mean by greyhound racing and the move to a ban, managing that transition as well, through the work of the implementation group that is going on at the moment. So, it's very much focused on prohibition of greyhound racing. But you rightly identify that there is a wider issue out there. So, for example, Mick, we might well have, and I suspect there are—. If we move to a ban, with the will of the Senedd, there might well be, for example, trainers within Wales that choose then to train within Wales and take their dogs to other tracks. This, by the way, already happens, okay. It will not be new or novel. It has been there for years; trainers and dog owners train their dogs and then go to different tracks.

However, we need to make sure that the welfare of those greyhounds is also being looked after as well. So, we have a wider piece, Mick, that is already in train, to do with licensing and regulation of that wider animal welfare for all animals that are trained, kept, within Wales. It's within our devolved competence. That work continues. My team here—Jackie, and others—are still working on bringing that forward as well. This focus on the greyhound prohibition will not divert us from that. So, there may well be, Mick—and to committee members—a piece of additional work that we're already engaged in that might lead us to the conclusion that says we also need to look at that wider piece of how we regulate the ownership, keeping and training of greyhounds, including that example I gave you where they might be racing the greyhounds outside. Well, we need to look after the welfare of those animals whilst they're here in Wales. We cannot interfere with what happens over the border with racing, but we can darn well make sure that the welfare of those animals is looked after whilst they're here in Wales. So, it's a separate but related piece of work.

The other thing I would say, Mick, as well, is that the work of the implementation group might well throw up some of these consequences, and we'd be keen then to learn from that and factor that into this ancillary piece of work that we're already embarked upon.

Okay. Thank you very much for that. No further questions from me, Cadeirydd.

Okay. Thank you, Mick. We'll go to Llyr.

Diolch yn fawr. Thank you, Chair. I just want to probe a bit further, really, on the process that has brought us to this point of legislation being tabled before us. Because you announced a ban before the Government responded to the 2023 consultation, which, of course, wasn't a consultation on a ban; it was a consultation on licensing of animal welfare establishments. There were only two questions within that that I think are probably relevant here, and one of those was about licensing, not in fact about a ban. There have been no further substantial consultations following those questions—no White Paper et cetera. Is that the way the Government usually legislates?

There are different ways in which Government legislates. As somebody who is 22 years into legislating now, there are various ways in which we bring forward legislation. I can perfectly describe how this piece came about. You know, Llyr, that I tend to come into this role, in the 18 months or whatever I've been in, and I look fresh at the evidence, views, in a range of policy areas, and then choose whether to act upon it. So, from my perspective, when I came into this, knowing the consultation had taken place—and, you're right, there were two questions within that consultation—I chose to look at those submissions, the scale of those submissions, the weight of those submissions. There were different views, by the way, in terms of those two questions as well, but there was an overwhelming consensus of the respondents—65 per cent—in favour of moving towards a phased ban. I looked at the considerations there on welfare grounds and ethical grounds, and the views that were expressed by some very good organisations within Wales that are in rehoming, animal welfare, greyhound rescue et cetera, et cetera, as well as those other stakeholders as well—so, considering those views. And then, actually, as we know, back in February, I think it was, Llyr, we had a debate on the floor of the Senedd on greyhound racing. It was pretty darn clear where the consensus of the people who contributed to that debate was as well. Llyr, I have seen over the years the many, many Members of this Senedd who have engaged with the animal welfare organisations, and also engaged with the track and others, to understand their views, but I've come to very clear conclusions. So, all of that factored into my consideration of where we should move.

So, we published my initial view—. Sorry. We published the initial summary of responses, which I committed to back in December, so that the wider Senedd and public could see where we were on those summary of responses. We had that debate. I then took away, for my consideration, where we should go next, and, based on what we've already discussed, both the ethical and the animal welfare considerations, specifically to greyhounds, we chose, then, to move ahead towards a prohibition, subject to the view of the Senedd.

And I don't disagree with a lot of what you say about the principles involved here, but, obviously, our role is to test the process, really, and to make sure that it's done in a way that is robust and will stand up to scrutiny. But the consultation, of course, wasn't about a ban, was it? It was about licensing animal welfare establishments, with a question about a ban. Now, are you convinced, therefore, that the answers, the wider responses to that consultation, actually were responding to a proposal on a ban, which they weren't other than just one particular question, and how can you be sure that that is a robust basis to have collected and reflected on the views of stakeholders and society, because it was a consultation, frankly, on something that isn't what you're doing now?

But there was that key and clear question on views and seeking evidence on a ban, and the views were quite compelling, and 65 per cent is not to be sniffed at in terms of responses, but also the evidence being put forward. We also, of course, Llyr, have had the opportunity to look at where other countries are on this, and we looked to the approach being taken now in New Zealand, where they've come to a similar discussion; Scotland as well.

[Inaudible.] I'm asking about this consultation, really, not about what they're doing currently. You said 65 per cent—you know, the message was clear, but, of course, it's 65 per cent of people who were responding to a consultation about licensing animal welfare establishments. Had you undertaken a consultation about banning, it could well have been higher—I'm not arguing that the figures would be different—but the type and the number and the nature of people and organisations responding probably would have been a bit different, wouldn't they?

Possibly, but there was a clear ask within that consultation, both for evidence and views on moving towards a phased ban, and those views were very clearly expressed. Many organisations submitted to that, including those organisations who are involved within racing and licensed racing as well. So, Ministers are in a privileged position, then, to assess submissions to a consultation of that, and I would say, Llyr, very clearly that that allowed—that consultation and those two questions within it—for views and evidence to be put forward. But it's not solely on that we are resting, as I've made clear; it's the wider, comprehensive nature of what is happening outside of that review, the evidence we have, the GBGB statistics themselves on fatalities and injuries, the evidence from other places in the world as well. So, all of that leads to a point where Welsh Government is in a privileged position, but also is entitled within our devolved competences to make a decision as to whether we proceed on ethical and animal welfare grounds. But the consultation was of signal help to us in this, because it did give a clear view of where the mood was on moving to a phased ban, and helped gather some of the evidence towards that.

Just finally, then: why did you announce the ban in February, which was before you had published your response to the consultation, which was in June? Why did you take that approach? Because, as you said, you published the summary of responses before then, but maybe you should have responded to that before, maybe, announcing the ban.

As you mentioned, there are different ways in which Government comes to a view on an issue of such significance as this, because we don't take this decision lightly. But, in publishing the summary, and then being informed as well by the debate in the Senedd—. And one of the roles of Government and Ministers is to listen, as well, to the views of their parliamentarians, as well as publishing the summary so we could see that summary of where the responses were and the evidence, and, of course, as I've described to you as well, my own consideration, having come into office, of where we were on this, and there was a mood to move to some positions, both in terms of the wider animal licensing, but also what we would do on greyhound racing. So, it's on that basis that I made it clear then, earlier in the year, that this is where we're heading, and, quite frankly, in terms of this Government as well, to enable my team here to actually start considering how do we put this together, because we're in the final stages of a Government period. It's quite a challenge, I have to say to you, to bring forward a Bill in the time that we have available. But, seeing where the will of the Senedd was, seeing where the evidence was, and having changed our position, I needed to signal in due time, if we had any chance whatsoever of moving then towards bringing a Bill forward.

So, I presume that your view of the consultation was settled before you decided to have a ban and, if that was the case, then surely your response to that consultation could have been published sooner, rather than maybe delaying the announcement of a ban.

No, not quite, because there's also—. Even though I'm in the privileged position as the Minister who advocates a particular position, having judged and balanced the evidence and the views and so on, I still have to actually take this through my wider Cabinet colleagues and to listen to the views of those Senedd Members, as expressed in that, I think, quite pivotal debate as well. That is due process as I regard it as a Minister and as somebody who has regard for the legislature as well. That enabled me then to come to a decision early in the year and to signal where we were going—not earlier, not before I'd heard those views, not before I'd run this through other Cabinet colleagues as well to take their views as well. But I needed to do it at the right time to enable us to have a fighting chance of bringing forward the legislation, and also, by the way, of talking through this phased approach where we set up the implementation group so that we can then build up the consideration of, 'What do we now do? How do we make sure that we can rehome animals? How do we move in a phased approach so we take into consideration the employees, the future use of the site, the engagement of the local authority?' I needed to give this Senedd the time to engage with this process, as we're now doing, and also to make sure we could set up that implementation group. So, the timing was the optimal timing. It's never ideal, but it was the optimal timing.

Diolch.

Okay, thank you, Llyr. We'll go to Gareth.

Thank you very much, Chair. Good morning, everybody. I want to strip it back a little bit and just ask you, Cabinet Secretary how popular you believe greyhound racing is in Wales, and what citizen engagement work and assessment has the Welsh Government done to understand the public appetite for greyhound racing, or indeed a possible lack of appetite for greyhound racing in Wales.

It's a really interesting question because, as you know, Gareth, there is only the one track, and, prior to that track entering the licensing regime with GBGB, I think we can fairly say that, over many years, greyhound racing in Wales had been in decline. But one of the interesting factors that I raised recently, because of the wider commercial imperatives around greyhound racing, actually, the licensing—. I'm not saying the licensing is the reason, but it has led to more track events at that single track. So, where's the popularity of greyhound racing? There's been a sustained decline in attendance at tracks across Wales and across the UK over recent years, but the commercialisation around this, the coverage, the betting and so on that goes along with it, and the licensing—. Some tracks have closed. Places like Swindon, I think, recently, have closed. But in this track in Wales there's been increased activity. So, it's a slightly difficult one to answer: attendance going down, years of decline, going down, only one track in Wales, but, since the licensing, increased track meetings at this track.

Gareth, just before you continue, Mick has a supplementary on one of the points that have just come up.

Okay.

Can I just pursue that a bit, because I haven't seen—? I'm not sure if I've missed it, but are there any clear figures in terms of attendance? Of course, I remember, when I first came to Wales, there were tracks all over the place—in Cardiff, in Rhydyfelin, and so on. But it seems to me that it's a sport that's been in terminal decline. Is it reasonable to say that the main commercial imperative that's sustaining greyhound racing is the gambling industry?

That's part of it, Mick, but it's also the wider things, we understand, like sponsorship deals, the broadcasting of it on different channels and so on. As you know, it's not now, like it was years ago, on ITV at lunchtime on a Saturday or whatever, but there are channels out there that broadcast it. So, it's some of those commercial imperatives, as well as the betting and gambling.

One of the things we are trying to do through the implementation group, because the Valley track is represented on that—and we really welcome that, by the way, because it's critical that they're engaged in how we take this process forward—is we're trying to work with them to understand better, to get the clarity of what the attendance figures are, what the finances are around the track, what those wider commercial imperatives are.

Let me just turn to Jackie, because she's deeply involved with this. But we're hoping to flesh some of this out, Mick, in the numbers, by the engagement with the Valley stadium on that group.

Yes, exactly that. The Valley stadium have been invited to sit on the group, and they have, and that's good. We've had three meetings. We had the last meeting face-to-face; I think you get a better input if you're sitting in the same room as people. We've asked continually for information, which they've given us verbally. We would like that in writing, to be submitted through the portal that we've got set up for the implementation group, so that we can use all of the information that's available to us to enhance the regulatory impact assessment.

We are still waiting on details on footfall to the Valley stadium. As the Deputy First Minister said, Swindon is about to close. They'll have their last race at Christmastime. We know that rescue centres are already helping them to rehome the dogs that have been made surplus to requirements because of that announcement, as well as when our track, if we get the Bill through, is closing.

So, we will get that information; we just don't have it yet. But anecdotal information, from what we've heard from the area, is that people living there don't go. We've canvassed people through work, and through people that we know, and asked, 'When did you last visit the track?' and they say, 'Well, I've never been', and they're living two minutes from it. So, it appears to us, from a public point of view, to be less attractive, possibly, than other sports.

Thank you.

Back to Gareth.

Thank you. I must say I do find it staggering how we're here scrutinising legislation and we're going off anecdotal evidence over attendances. You say that greyhound racing is in terminal decline, there's closures across the country. You gave the example of Swindon. I'm from the north, so I remember Belle Vue park in Manchester. That's long gone as well now. So, with it being in terminal decline, seemingly, and there's anecdotal evidence, do you believe that this is a good way to do legislation, without any facts and figures on the table, because we're just going off hearsay here, aren't we?

No, we're not, Gareth. We're not going off hearsay or anecdotal evidence. You can track this back a number of years, and—

Your official has just said that, though, Cabinet Secretary, with all respect.

No, I think you're selectively taking words here out of context, with respect. What my official said is that we are seeking additional information through the engagement on the implementation group, where Valley stadium is represented, and we're really hopeful and confident that that information will come forward. And then we can share it, by the way, not only with the committee, but also input it into the impact assessments that we are doing, but we need that hard data from Valley stadium.

What you can do, Gareth, is go way beyond anecdotal. You're right in saying that there used to be stadiums in Manchester that have gone. There used to be a stadium in Skewen, close to where I used to live. That is long gone. There were many other stadiums. So, I think you can go well beyond the anecdotal and look at the decline of attendance, the decline of the commercial imperatives around stadiums themselves. But balanced against this is that wider commercial imperative within some of these stadiums, which is based on not only betting and gambling but actually sponsorship deals, broadcasting rights and all of that.

When you have a licensed stadium like Valley stadium, which has gone into the licensing regime, and then that leads to increased track events, and you put that against, Gareth, the number of GBGB stats on fatalities and injuries, which are still really, really high, then clearly that is a worry and a concern that has led to the decision that we have made here to bring forward the prohibition and the ban in Wales. But it's not anecdotal, Gareth.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, but you don't just say 'decline', you say 'terminal decline', which suggests that, at some point in the future, given that, anecdotally, greyhound racing does seem to be not transcending generations as was previously the case—. So, do you see a ban potentially just being an exercise in trying to be on the right side of history, rather than actually achieving what is on the face of this that it wants to achieve? Less greyhound racing means that fewer greyhounds are subject to the sport. So, if it's in the terminal decline that you describe, what is the point of the exercise of having a Bill if you're convinced that it's in terminal decline anyway? Surely you should be making legislation if you were seeing trends of greyhound racing going up and standards falling. There seem to be so many contradictions here, as far as I'm concerned.

Let me try to deal with some of those contradictions, as you see it. I've been very, very clear, Gareth, that even though we have one track, now that it has entered a licensed regime, which we welcomed because there are improvements that come with being in a licensed regime as opposed to an independent track, even though tracks in Wales have been in decline over many, many decades now, so that we only have one in Wales—not the same in England, not the same in Scotland, but in Wales there is only one—I think that shows something of where the public in Wales is, quite frankly.

But now they've entered a licensed regime, there are wider commercial imperatives that have led, Gareth, directly to an increase in the number of track events. The increase in track events, when you put it alongside the data on injuries and fatalities, shows that there is a clear propensity for those injuries and fatalities to increase when there are more track events. So, even though an industry may be in decline—. And I can see that you're dancing around this phrase 'terminal decline'. Well, the decline has been over many, many decades. I would just caution against fixating on one phrase, but there is a pattern of decline here.

We have the powers in Wales, if we feel it is appropriate, if this committee feels it's appropriate, if the Senedd feels it's appropriate, to move on ethical and animal welfare considerations to a ban on greyhound racing. We've set out our Welsh Government position. We don't sit around as legislators or policy makers when we feel that the right decision is to be made, far from doing something that is simply to be on the right side of history, but my goodness, I do like to be on the right side of history on a number of issues. This is to do with a here-and-now decision as to whether we feel it is right to move to a prohibition on greyhound racing. It's as simple as that.

We've set out very clearly why we feel it is right to do this in Wales. And we're confident, Gareth, that other nations will want to follow us. New Zealand has set out its mark already, that it is moving, Scotland has a Bill going through as well. We think that it's not a bad thing for Wales, using its powers, to say that we want to help lead the way on this when we've put forward the evidence of why we want to do it.

Thank you. And finally, if I may, in February 2025, the UK Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport told Parliament:

'We have absolutely no plans whatsoever to ban greyhound racing. We appreciate the joy it brings to many, many people in our country and the economic contribution it makes.'

So, my question is: why do you take a different stance to the UK Government, particularly given that, so far in this discussion, we've discussed many cases of greyhound tracks that are not just in Wales but across the UK as well?

We are a devolved Government and we reserve the right, in non-reserved areas of competence, to make our own policy decisions.

Thank you.

Diolch. Just before we move on, could I ask you, in terms of the phasing of this, could you talk us through, please, the Government's rationale for introducing the ban no sooner than 1 April 2027 and no later than 1 April 2030? In terms of that specific timeline, what assessment was made, please?

Thank you very much. We think it's really important, having established the implementation group, which is well up and running—. I think they've had three meetings so far and they're meeting regularly now working through all the evidence. Just to remind the committee that on that implementation group, we have a wide range of stakeholders, including the local authority as well as Valley stadium, as well as animal welfare organisations. The chair is a very prominent individual from the veterinary profession from Bristol university, academia and so on. They're doing great work.

They need to consider all of those consequences that will flow from this, not only in things such as the obvious ones of working on do we have adequate capacity—and I'm confident we do, by the way, based on the offers made by the animal welfare organisations—for rehoming and making sure we don't have negative consequences on the greyhound welfare itself, but also on future use of the track so that it isn't left derelict and unused and unloved and empty. We need to do that.

There are the people who work at the track. And again, we're working with Valley stadium to identify how many that is, what the economic impact is. But we have a very good track record in Wales, when we do these transitions, because this is a transition, of actually reskilling, upskilling those individuals so that they move into other employment.

All of those things need to be taken into consideration. So, I think it's right that we give the implementation group the ability to say, 'We think this is the way to phase this ban in; we think this is the duration it will take'. I did make clear yesterday, in the debate on this on the floor of the Senedd, that when I set out, in my statement much earlier in the year, that my intent would be that we move to a prohibition of greyhound racing as soon as is practically possible, we're going to bring this legislation forward and get it done in the Senedd term, with the will of the Senedd, but then we move ahead as fast as we can, but let's not do it in haste, which might have negative consequences, either for the greyhounds, or alternatively for the people who are working there and so on.

Giving that timescale allows the implementation group to give us the best advice possible to say, 'This is how you need to do the transition; this is how you need to phase it in, here are the considerations'. They may come back and conclude that we can do this earlier. But they may come back and say, 'You need to take a bit more concern, because you need to talk about the future of this track'—I understand that one of the things about this track is that it's on a floodplain—'how do you actually deal with future use; in terms of transitioning the skills of those people on it, this is the programme of action we need to do for those; here are the employment opportunities, this is the time it will take.'

And most importantly and critically, do we have the capacity with the rehoming sector? Because the goodwill of the organisations to deal with rehoming is clear and evident, but part of what they want to bottom out is can it be done now, immediately, overnight, or do we need to give a bit of time to build some more capacity and possibly with some support from the Welsh Government to do that. That's why we've put a window of time in there and the implementation group can help steer us on that. Jackie, have I missed anything on that?

No—

But that's why.

Okay. Thank you, both.

Thank you for that. We'll go to Lee.

Thank you. I just want to explore some of the foreseeable unintended consequences that have been identified, one of which, as you touched on yourself, is that there's a possibility that the racing will continue in other parts of the UK and, simply, breeders from Wales will travel to those areas, and that could be distressing for the animals, because it includes a longer travel time, which brings suffering of its own. Do you have any assessment of the likelihood of the number of Welsh breeders continuing to be involved at further distances?

We don't have hard data on that, but we're hoping that that is one of the things that the implementation group will look at. And bear in mind, as I said earlier on this, this is not a new phenomenon—there are keepers, trainers, racers of greyhounds that already use other tracks beyond our borders, so there is a flow already. So, what we would like the implementation group to do is to try and harden a bit of our analysis on this: how much of that happens now, what could happen in future? But do bear in mind as well, there is already legislation in place to do with the transportation of animals, and we will adhere to that. So, the Welfare of Animals (Transport) (Wales) Order 2007 covers the transportation of all animals, including greyhounds, and that needs to be adhered to. And we will—depending on what the implementation group comes up with—keep this under close consideration as we go forward.

Bear in mind as well, the other aspect of this, as we referred to in an earlier question from Llyr, is the wider issue of the welfare of animals within the wider licensing regulatory regime in Wales. So, even if there are, and I suspect there may be some who will choose to continue training, keeping greyhounds for racing elsewhere, it might well be that the implementation group says, 'As part of your wider consideration of licensing and regulation, you will want to move into this space.' So, I'm not pre-empting that, but we are very alive to that possibility because we have a responsibility beyond the tracks, and the prohibition on racing with lures and mechanical lures and so on, to that wider welfare, not just transport, but how they're being looked after, bred, kept, et cetera.

Another perennial danger is that whenever you ban anything it simply goes underground. So, there's a real risk that instead of operating in a regulated environment, the harms in fact become greater. What sort of intelligence is there to look at the extent of a black-market operation?

So, the key thing within this legislation is the very clear description of what we mean by 'greyhound racing', not just at a track, but actually a description of greyhound racing that could be anywhere, quite frankly. So, there's a very clear definition here of mechanical lures being used, of a track that could be a grass track, it could be a prepared track, could be an artificial track, could be a track in a field, but if it's as defined here, then I think it's going to be pretty clear and obvious that greyhound racing is going on. Greyhounds themselves, of course, are very clearly identified by the Kennel Club and others as a breed, so that would be pretty clear. Then it's the enforcement; it's the enforcement and the intelligence. We're very familiar with this with other spheres of animal welfare consideration.

We think it will be very, very difficult to move to an underground form of greyhound racing, but we're also keen to see what the implementation group come forward with as suggestions on this, if they think it is a major challenge. We don't think it will be. We've also had things raised with us: 'Could this lead to other forms of dogs being raced, and so on?' The commercial imperatives around this, which we discussed earlier, are not to do with attendance at tracks any more or people going along to see; they're the wider commercial things around sponsorship deals, betting and gambling and so on. It is difficult to conceive how that could easily be replicated in a field in Upper Cwmtwrch.

And who's going to be primarily responsible—

Upper Cwmtwrch is the—. Sorry.

I got the reference. Who's going to be primarily responsible for the enforcement?

Local authorities will be primarily responsible and we need—again, through the work the implementation group is doing—discussions with local authorities. Bear in mind, that Caerphilly is represented on this, but we also have Welsh Local Government Association representation as well. So, to talk through those considerations, but local—. And we have confidence that local authority enforcement officers—based on the work that we've done with them over recent years with wider animal welfare—are the right people to do this and then we can talk about the resourcing and the considerations around that.

Because we know across the whole range of enforcement obligations local authorities have, from trading standards to building regulations—

Yes.

—they're simply not resourced, currently, to deal with their existing burden of enforcement, and you're adding additional enforcement responsibilities on them. What assessment have you made of the likelihood of them being able to absorb that effectively?

Well, we want to identify what and whether there will be significant additional impact on local authorities. Bear in mind that, in recent years, we've actually given additional resources to local authority animal welfare enforcement already. We have a standing animal welfare group that brings all the charities together, including police and local authorities, and our feedback from that is that the additional resource that we put in and the expertise are working really well. Local authority enforcement on animal welfare is now working better than it has in previous years.

But I can give you an assurance that part of the work that the implementation group is doing is to consider what is the realistic assessment of not only whether this would add to illicit racing—and there are, as I've said, queries over how much that is a risk—but if it were to be, then how much additional resource would need to be put in, not just in enforcement, but in intelligence, because part of this is to do with intelligence. I'm sad to say, in a very different context of animal welfare, that we still have illicit activities such as badger baiting going on. That is not normally done by pure enforcement; there's an element of it, but it's intelligence gathering, working with police and others.

So, I'm confident that we have the right structures, what we just need to do is bolt down and say, 'What's the level of that risk?' I've tried to describe to you that our assessment at the moment is that we think the risk is relatively low, because greyhound racing, even if it's in a field somewhere in the back of beyond, would be pretty clear and identifiable and enforceable against that. But this is under consideration in the implementation group.

Okay. Did Jackie Price want to add something?

I was just going to add about the additional work that the local authorities are doing. So, they set up the animal licensing Wales team several years ago, and we've been grant funding that from the Welsh Government perspective. What they're doing is trying of look at licensed breeders, unlicensed breeders, looking at the standards for licensed breeders within Wales for all local authorities, because some local authorities will have 100-plus licensed breeders, others will have two. So, to ensure that they've all got the same sort of knowledge base, there's a lot of work going on in that space. They've been commended by the RSPCA for that work.

And this is an add-on. Okay, there's another thing to have half an eye on. They're watching. The Caerphilly local authority, at the request of the previous Minister who had this portfolio, went in and did unannounced inspections at Valley track as well. So, it's on their radar, and, as the Deputy First Minister said, if you wanted to replicate a greyhound race elsewhere, to make it commercially viable to do so, that would be very, very difficult and very visible.

Okay. And then, just moving on, there's mixed evidence about the ability of the sector to deal with rehoming dogs that are retired. Some of the evidence thought that the sector would be comfortably able to deal with it. Others queried that. What's your own assessment?

First of all, I think it's a valid concern and we need to get this right, which is why we shouldn't rush with this. We need to really think this through. We know that, in the last year alone, there were something like 3,300, or slightly more, ex-racing greyhounds surrendered to rehoming centres across England and Wales. That's the scale of this challenge. However, I've got to say, the animal welfare charities, the rehoming organisations and so on have really stepped up to the mark. GBGB itself is reporting something like a 94 per cent success rate in rehoming currently.

But if we move to a prohibition in Wales, we can reasonably anticipate that there will be an increase. So, we're trying to bottom out what that will be. These things are where the implementation group really comes into its own. So, we don't rush with this. We work through this and what it will be. Just to say, that 94 per cent is up from 88 per cent back in 2018.

So, there is a real body of work already being done, but we do recognise the potential impact the ban may have. So, we're working with the welfare organisations now, both with the implementation group, but on a wider basis, to make sure that their goodwill is reflected in their capacity to deliver this. Hence why, coming back to how fast do you move to a ban, we move to a ban in a way that does not jeopardise greyhound welfare by not being able to rehome. I think we have a fair degree of confidence, by the way, in the conversations we've had with animal welfare organisations, that they can step up the capacity. They might actually ask us to assist in different ways with policy and so on, to assist with that or co-ordination. We're in that space.

Okay. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, diolch. James, you wanted to come in.

Thank you. Something that has been interesting through the conversations of the implementation group is that there are interesting conversations between those involved with racing and welfare, but there's real agreement on the welfare of dogs and the rehoming. So, we've had conversations already about those figures. They're being provided to us. We've got initial figures, as we've mentioned, from GBGB and the rehoming sector, and we're providing more of those in a report later this autumn, or the group will be.

Sorry, Lee, just to clarify as well, it's specifically within the terms of reference of the implementation group. So, its terms of reference include protecting the welfare of racing greyhounds now and through the transition, mitigating the pressure on the rescue and rehoming sector and—I'm reading directly from the terms of reference here—establishing best practice for transition by considering the approaches in other countries as well. So, we want to get this right for the greyhounds.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for that.

In terms of human rights assessments, what assessment have you made, please, in terms of the powers of enforcement in the Bill relating to human rights?

The powers of enforcement, just to say, are the type of what we would regard as conventional powers and protections. They appear quite regularly in legislation where we regularly create offences. So, we're taking human rights, as you would expect, fully into account in the preparation of this Bill. So, we set out the enforcement powers in section 4 and Schedule 2 to the Bill, and they do include some of those quite commonplace enforcement powers that we see in other legislation. So, they include, for example, the power to enter dwellings; it's a not insignificant power, but it is quite commonplace. And the powers of inspection and seizure as well, again quite commonplace, but they need to be properly considered. So, the inspectors can only, must only—sorry, to get the legislative terminology right—use these powers to enter dwellings if the occupier or the person in charge of the premises consents, or the inspector obtains a warrant from the magistrate. So, within paragraph 3 of Schedule 2, it goes through the detail of the conditions that need to be met to obtain a warrant, and paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 details the limitations on that warrant. So, we're very much replicating the approach taken in other legislation, and we've considered, as we've done with other legislation that uses powers of enforcement and so on, the full human rights considerations. We think we've got the balance right.

Thank you for that. And specifically in terms of an assessment of human rights on the fact that, were this ban to come into effect, it would end a business and the employment of certain individuals, what assessment have you made about the human rights implications of that?

Yes, we've done careful consideration of the human rights in respect of that context. So, we've taken human rights fully into accord in preparing this Bill. We do consider that the Bill has a fair and proportionate balance between the protection of the rights of those affected by the Bill, as you've laid out, and the effectiveness of the enforcement of the proposed regime. So, we're satisfied that the Bill is compatible with the European convention on human rights, including article 1, protocol 1 and article 8. So, we set out in the explanatory memorandum further detail of the context and the purpose of the Bill, and from this, we make it clear that the reason for the proposed ban on racing grounds—to come back to our earlier conversation—is both on ethics and to improve animal welfare.

In addition to the explanatory memorandum, the regulatory impact assessment has been completed and published. But just to make clear, and to go back to some of the conversations we've had already, as we gather more information, particularly through the work of the implementation group and the contribution of data and assessment and so on, we will bring forward additional impact assessments and they'll be kept under review during the passage of the Bill.

I think it's vitally important in all of this to reiterate how pleased we are to actually have Valley stadium on the implementation group, because we want to know the perspective of those directly involved in the industry and their practical insights into the development of what mitigation measures we can put in place and what support mechanisms we could put in place. So, on that basis, we're confident that we've not only considered the human rights implications, particularly for Valley stadium itself and for others directly impacted, but also we've got the balance right.

Thank you for that.

Finally, we'll go back to Llyr.

Diolch yn fawr. You touched earlier, Deputy First Minister, on the definition of a greyhound. I'm just wondering, really, why did you choose not to include a definition of what a greyhound is on the face of the Bill, because there are, I think, eight or nine different types of greyhounds, and also there are 40-plus mixed breeds out there.

I'll turn to my expert in a moment—Jackie, to my right—on this, but I think in our discussions with the Kennel Club and others, there is a fair degree of acceptance of what a greyhound is within their definitions, what a greyhound is and what a greyhound isn't. But I wonder, Jackie, if you can elaborate on that, on our definitions of greyhound and why we haven't tried to do a comprehensive definition within the Bill.

Well, there are key characteristics of a greyhound. I think that we could all spot one if we had a parade of dogs in here now. There are clear physical traits of the greyhound. The Kennel Club has explained what they are. All dogs racing aren't registered. They are not all registered with the Kennel Club. I'm not explaining this very well. They are a recognised breed, I think is all that we need to say. They are recognised by the Kennel Club, even though they're not licensed necessarily with them. They do vary slightly in type. As you've just said, there are different variations. But they are recognisable, so if we were to define it, that would pin us down a little bit too tightly, I think.

James, did you want to add anything?

Yes. The policy intent here was quite precise as well, and that's led to a clear draft prohibition Bill. So, obviously, we know about lurchers, whippets, other dogs, terriers. They do race, but we don't have the evidence or strength of feeling, through consultation stakeholders, that that happens a lot in Wales, or leads to a high number of injuries and deaths. So, we have been very specific in just having the scope of this, as narrow as it is, on greyhounds.

Llyr, the essence of it is that it's a very well recognised breed, identifiable by certain traits. The Kennel Club is clear on what a greyhound is and what it isn't. So, unlike something like the dangerous dogs legislation and the definition of those things, a greyhound is very, very clearly identifiable by characteristic traits. There's no doubt about what is and what isn't a greyhound.

I'm just sort of probing a little bit about unintended consequences here, really. At what point is a greyhound technically not a greyhound, and how far could people who wish to pursue some activity take it? But, yes, I get the point.

And that's a really valid point, Llyr, as well, and we have considered—. Bearing in mind that the consultation very much focused on greyhounds, we have considered that—are there other cross-overs with similar-ish ones? But actually, greyhounds used for racing are used for racing for very specific purposes because they are bred and trained for speed and for their characteristic performance. No other breed offers that commercial appeal. So, that's why the focus of groups out there who have called for this legislation, and others, has been on greyhounds. They don't think that there are other breeds with the same characteristics and the same commercial appeal.

Thank you for that. So, you do offer an interpretation of 'greyhound racing', of course, which is to run around a track in pursuit of a lure activated by mechanical means. I just want to probe a little bit what you mean by 'track'.

Yes, indeed. We have been very clear in the legislation as to what we mean by a 'track' and the definition of it. So, while we don't explicitly define the term 'track' within the Bill, what we do is we focus on the act of racing itself, and we think that this captures what we're trying to do. So, we specifically describe setting greyhounds to run in pursuit of a lure activated by mechanical means. Now, the inclusion of the words, within the legislation, 'around a track' is intended then to capture that nature of racing that we're very familiar with—tracks where there's a curve in nature, where the well-documented risk of harm and, indeed, fatalities is most prevalent. So, the term 'track' will take its ordinary meaning. It refers to a purpose-built path, which could be circular or could be oval, used for racing events. This definition needs to be read alongside the reference to a mechanically activated lure. So, they need to be read together. So, if an activity is captured by this ban, it must involve, Llyr, a track that greyhounds run around, and a mechanically activated lure that the greyhounds chase. And it's only when these features are present—all of these features—that the activity would fall within the scope of the ban.

But what this allows us to do, Llyr, is—. That track, as I've mentioned before, could be grass; it could be temporarily marked out. The ban applies regardless of the running surface, it's when a lure is used to guide the greyhound around a track—it could be a purpose-built stadium, but it could be other ones as well, which are temporary. All are captured within the scope of the Bill. So, we've taken that approach deliberately to make sure that the point that was raised earlier on by Lee about illicit greyhound racing, where it suddenly appears in a field, or on an industrial estate or whatever—they would be captured as well within our definition of a track, in its understandable context, and also a mechanical lure being used, which is characteristic of greyhound racing.

But not if they run in a straight line, because you've just said 'curved in nature', and the wording says 'around a track', which I presume means circular or oval. A sprint race goes from about 203m, so they could run a sprint race in a straight line, behind a mechanical lure, and that would be legal.

Let me bring James in on that. You are correct in that. We know that the prevalence of injuries and fatalities is around tracks that do have curves within them, but you are—

[Inaudible.]

James.

On the straight line question, no, that wouldn't fall under the Bill as drafted. What we wanted to avoid was the idea of people taking a couple of greyhounds out for a run, running down the beach, chasing after something in a straight line. So, that's why we were specific around using the word 'track' and 'around a track'. Running in a straight line, we don't have the evidence to show that there's harm around that activity. We don't feel like it's necessary to put that in the wording of the Bill. These things can be—. It's right to ask the question, and it's good to actually bring this through, because we don't want to bring forward unintended consequences and stop people's enjoyment of their dogs, and the dogs' enjoyment themselves of running.

The other thing as well is fun races. We talked about fun races at agricultural shows, game fairs involving dogs such as terriers, lurchers, other breeds, and running for competition. We don't want to capture those by the ban, but we do. What will happen is if those fairs involve a marked track and a greyhound running around after a mechanical lure, then they will obviously fall under the ban.

Llyr, the importance here is we're trying to—. It is a difficult balance, but the focus of the legislation is on banning greyhound racing. So, we tried to capture that. We're also trying to avoid the unintended consequences of things like the individual trainer or keeper, who is not racing greyhounds but will be out on a beach or whatever, exercising their greyhound in a way that isn't to do with greyhound racing and the commercial aspect of it, or particularly things like those agricultural shows, which are not done for commercial reasons. They are fun races that take place, and we know they do, with lurchers and terriers and so on. It's a difficult one, but we think what we've tried to do is focus on the characteristic nature and the risk of injuries and fatalities of greyhound racing as we know it.

But would it not have been better to tackle the commercial aspect of racing in legislation rather than trying to define what racing is?

Well, we tried to do that by defining the—. We know that the commercial nature of greyhound racing is based around following a mechanical lure around a track, and it tends to be in a circuit with bends as well. That's the approach we've taken, and we've done it to capture that, but also to try and avoid capturing other permissible activities. It's a difficult balance here, but we're very much focused on the questions that were asked within that consultation, the responses that came back, and not capturing other activities that I think members of the committee would not necessarily want to outlaw, such as fun races at agricultural shows.

The question is the right question, and here's the difficulty that Scotland will face and New Zealand is facing as well. We think we've got the right one that will deal with the existing track within Wales, but also the risk of other, let's say, illicit tracks opening up that would try to replicate what currently goes on.

Okay. I presume that maybe your answer to my next line of questioning won't be dissimilar, really. I'm just wondering how you arrived at the offences under section 1 of the Bill, because obviously you talk there about stadium owners and organisers of racing, rather than necessarily those who own the dogs that go to those races, or those who are responsible for those dogs, which of course is the approach they've chosen in Scotland.

Yes, it's a slightly different reasoning, actually, on this. This is not dissimilar to the approach we've taken in other legislation. So, if you recall, for example, under some of the COVID regulations that we brought forward, when there were illicit gatherings, rather than go after every individual who was at that gathering, who might have been there innocently or whatever, the target was very much on the organisers of that illicit gathering, the people who were behind the organisation of it. So in section 1 of the Bill the offences are designed, we think, to be quite targeted, and also fair and proportionate and enforceable, because what we don't want to do is say to the enforcement authorities, ‘Go after the spectators, the trainers, the owners and everybody else who's attending.’ This is replicating, in some ways, things we've done before, which focuses very much on those who organise that greyhound racing event, whether that is at a current licensed track or whether that is something set up in a field or somewhere else. We think this is not just a reasonable and proportionate approach, but it's very practical as well.

Thank you. And just another question, then, on the fine, obviously the unlimited fine that is the penalty for an offence in this Bill. Scotland, of course, has included imprisonment as an option there for offenders, so how did you arrive at just a fine as opposed to maybe looking at what they've done in Scotland, or are proposing to do in Scotland?

We've come to the conclusion that we think the fine is the right approach, and bear in mind that the fine can be an unlimited fine, so it gives magistrates maximal opportunity for flexibility within sentences. So, the seriousness of offences, we anticipate, could vary significantly. For example, if you have a repeated—once the prohibition is in place—a repeated commercial event held in something that looks like a statement, that would warrant a very different penalty from a one-off event that is held by amateurs within a field. They're both serious offences, but somebody who's organising regular events with a full raft of commercial considerations behind it in a stadium—we’ve given the magistrates that flexibility with an unlimited fine to say, ‘You have the discretion to say how far you go.’ We think that unlimited fine is sensible and it's proportionate and it gives that flexibility.

Just to say one thing to the committee as well, we do anticipate, because of what we can see, and we've had those discussions over illicit racing—. We think the organisation of greyhound racing, if we move to a prohibition, would be pretty glaring and obvious and clear and identifiable. Now, on that basis, we expect breaches of the provisions of this Bill to be pretty rare. But we want these penalties in place so that magistrates can then bring the full weight of the law, and with an unlimited fine, we think this can really reflect the severity of any breaches of the legislation.

Okay, thank you very much. Gareth wants to come in.

Thank you, Chair. Yes, it was just on that point, on a technical level—the fact that Wales can't replicate the punishments being suggested in Scotland, the fact that justice isn't devolved to Wales—you can't actually enforce imprisonment within a devolved context, whereas Scotland can.

Gareth, that's a fair point on technical and constitutional matters, and I welcome your support for the longer term arguments for the devolution of justice. If that's what you were saying.

No, it's not what I'm saying, Cabinet Secretary. It's more on a point of accuracy, really, rather than suggesting anything else. But, yes, I think that's an important distinction to make. No, I don't support the devolution of justice, but I think in terms of the technical elements that we're discussing here, in terms of legislation, I think that's an important intervention to make on that behalf, anyway.

Yes, thanks, Gareth.

Thank you, Gareth. Llyr.

Just to pick up on something else, there was reference made earlier to Animal Licensing Wales when there was an exchange about enforcement et cetera, and the important role, the valuable role, that they've been playing in this space, really. But, of course, they're only funded until the end of this financial year, so I'm just wondering whether you believe that they have a critical role to play in supporting wider enforcement efforts in light of this legislation.

Yes, they absolutely will be playing a critical role, and I think the investment that we've put into them in recent years has really paid off. It really has paid off, and it's been recognised by the animal welfare organisations out there. So, we see them having a pivotal role, and, look, I would simply say I would welcome, as we go through the challenges of another budget round, the support of parties across the Chamber to make sure that we have the budget allocations, going forward, for that and for other matters as well, because, yes, we—. And, of course, we'll be moving into another budget cycle shortly as well. But, yes, from our perspective, Llyr, they are critical to the overall path of taking us forward, and, by the way, the wider animal licensing work that we are doing.

Okay. Diolch yn fawr. Thank you.

Thank you. I don't see that there are any other questions, so—

Sorry, James, did you want to come in?

No.

Okay. May I thank you all for your evidence this morning? A transcript of everything that's been said will be sent to you for you to check that it is an accurate record, but thank you very much for your evidence this morning.

Diolch yn fawr.