Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee

We move on to the first item, the Prohibition of Greyhound Racing (Wales) Bill. We have an evidence session with the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs. Welcome. Croeso to the Minister and your officials. Would they like to introduce themselves?

Bore da. Good morning. My name is Jackie Price. I head up the prohibition of greyhound racing Bill team.

Holly Miles, Welsh Government legal services.

Elizabeth Thomas, Welsh Government legal services.

Croeso. If I can start with the first question: are you satisfied that the Bill is within the Senedd's legislative competence?

We are, Chair.

Thank you. Are you satisfied that the Bill will not require the signification of the King or Duke of Cornwall's consent under section 111(4) of the Government of Wales Act 2006?

We are, Chair. We're aware that these consents are normally subject to remoteness and de minimis tests, and we're confident that this satisfies those.

Will this legislation sit under a code of Welsh law for animal welfare?

In terms of codes of legislation, which this committee is very interested in, as when I was sitting on it at one point as a member, it'll be for the Government in the next Senedd to identify those areas of legislation that they think are right for codification. There is an interest and intersection here between animal welfare and agriculture, and so on. There's an interplay. So, it may be that there is a future prospectus for this being under a code for animal welfare, but that's not for me at this moment, as this Minister, to commit to. It'll be for the next Government.

Diolch yn fawr. Sam Kurtz.

Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd. Good morning, Deputy First Minister. You told the Culture, Communications, Welsh Language, Sport and International Relations Committee in evidence that there is a wider piece, quote,

'already in train, to do with licensing and regulation of that wider animal welfare for all animals that are trained, kept, within Wales'.

Will this require further primary legislation?

No, not necessarily, Sam. That piece that we've been working on for quite some time now is still ongoing. We've been committed to that all the way through. As you say, it's the wider animal licensing piece that looks across the biggest bang for the buck, if you like—the widest number of animal welfare beneficial impacts that we can have. Within that piece, of course, as well—and I think we may have touched on this on the other committee, Sam—is the issue of the wider aspect of licensing of greyhound keepers and trainers as well, so that it's the whole welfare of the animal, of the greyhound, beyond racing itself. That work is still ongoing. Would it help if I brought Jackie in? Because she's my policy lead on this.

I'm sure you know better than I do.

The consultation on animal exhibits and activities closed with a clear hierarchy of where we should be starting, because clearly we can't possibly cover every single animal activity and license everything, so we were looking at rescues and rehoming centres being top of the list of where we should be concentrating our efforts, because that covers dogs and cats in this country. Alongside, there was a question on owners and trainers, as the Deputy First Minister said, in relation to the whole life of the dog, not just when it's racing.

So we don't rule that out, Sam, that in future either we or a future Government might want to, on the back of the consultation, on the back of the work that we're doing, return to the wider issue of welfare of greyhounds in keeping and so on outside of the racing, but there is also the bigger piece, which is to do with things such as animal rescues, animal sanctuaries, animal homing establishments.

Thank you. I didn't quite get in the answers there, Deputy First Minister, if you believe this is necessary through primary or secondary legislation, if required. Could you just elaborate a little bit further on the preference?

My apologies, Sam. We did consider secondary legislation as a way forward. The substantive issue here for me as a Minister in considering that is that, whilst the Animal Welfare Act 2006 does provide general protections for animals, what it doesn’t offer is a dedicated framework for the activity of greyhound racing—so not greyhound welfare, but greyhound racing. In light of our previous discussion, it might well be that I or a future Minister return to the issue of the welfare of the animals in terms of wider greyhounds. But greyhound racing is not specifically identified within the Animal Welfare Act, which otherwise could have allowed us to focus specifically on it. So that's why I've decided primary legislation is the way forward.

Alun Davies has a supplementary on this.

I'm grateful to you. There is, of course, a code of conduct for welfare of dogs in general. It doesn't specify greyhounds, as far as I remember.

Correct.

But it is a code of conduct for the welfare of dogs. I'm interested, therefore, that as far as I'm aware, no Welsh Government has ever considered that code to be inadequate.

I think what has changed is—and we may well come into this in some discussion on the rationale and justification for this piece of legislation, as we did on the previous committee—where we've identified that the welfare considerations are at their most significant is within greyhound racing, the running of dogs for commercial ends around a track. It's a significantly different level of jeopardy to animal welfare, many times resulting in injury and fatalities. So it takes it outwith, Alun, that broader scope of the legislation that's currently in place. That's why we feel that primary legislation specifically on greyhound racing is the right way forward.

When did the Government come to this view, because I am aware of no process followed by the Welsh Government prior to recent times on this matter? Certainly, when I was the Minister for animal welfare, greyhound racing never crossed my desk. No concerns, as far as I can remember—I'm happy to be corrected—were ever identified with it. Perhaps because it's such a minor sport—we've just got one stadium in Wales. So I'm interested that the Welsh Government seems to have come to this view around the time of a budget review, rather than around the time of a more general review of animal welfare matters.

Not so. And I'm really happy to clarify, Alun. In the 18 months since I've come into post, one of the things that was in my in-tray was the results of the consultation. Within that consultation, there were two very specific questions pertaining to greyhound racing itself, so not just the keeping and the broader animal welfare, but greyhound racing. There was a strong majority within that response that we should be moving to a phased ban of greyhound racing.

In addition to that, as you'll know, we've had the petition that was presented to the Senedd that culminated in a Senedd debate, where there was strong cross-party support for that ban on greyhound racing as well. In addition to that, there have been submissions to the original consultation of not only views, but evidence of the injuries, fatalities et cetera.

All of that accumulated at the time when I came into post. What I needed to do was decide—both in terms of the wider animal licensing, registration et cetera, plus the specific question of greyhounds—what was the way forward. It was clear to me, based on what we'd heard through the consultation, what we'd heard from the view of the Senedd itself, and all other submissions that had come forward, that there was a clear need—based on those injuries and fatalities within greyhound racing—that we must move on that evidential basis to a ban on greyhound racing.

You are right in saying there's only one track in Wales, but if the evidence both on animal welfare and ethical grounds is so compelling, it is for a Government Minister, based on Cabinet decisions as well, to then make the decision whether we feel it's appropriate to move to a prohibition.

I think the Government will find itself in some trouble if it uses petitions as a justification for this, because the biggest petition we've had, of course, was over the 20 mph. That was something like 400,000 people, whereas 18,000 people, I think, signed a petition on this in Wales. So, I'm not sure that the Government is on very strong ground when it uses that as a justification.

It's only one part of the—

I accept that, but you raised it in your answer to me. So, I think the Government is not on firm territory here. Usually, when a Government addresses an issue, it moves incrementally. You're not doing that on this occasion, and you're rushing this through prior to an election. I'm interested as to why the Government doesn't see fit to actually work with the industry to look for options short of banning something, which is a very draconian, authoritarian approach. The Government seems to have just fixated on this issue rather than working with an industry to improve conditions, as it's doing with other elements of animal welfare, and you've already referred to rescues and sanctuaries, and that sort of facility.

They're all good questions, but you won't be surprised that, having thought this through, I think I have very strong reasons why we're proceeding the way that we are. But also I'm going to challenge you a little bit, Alun, and the committee on some of your assertions—first, that we're rushing through. I think many of those people out there who responded to the original consultation, which was in my inbox when I came in, would say we're doing far from rushing this through. Actually, the response, both in terms of the wider animal welfare licensing, plus also the response to the greyhounds, has been sitting there waiting for quite some time for a Minister to take it forward.

Deputy First Minister, this committee—and you know as a former Chair of this committee—has had to deal with the Welsh Government coming up seven, eight, nine years after primary legislation—

Yes, but you know my style isn't to do that, Alun.

—to come up with secondary legislation to implement it. So, I don't buy this line that everything has to be done immediately. I wish I did, because that's the way it should be done, of course.

I tend to act decisively, and I act on the evidence.

Well, you're Deputy First Minister of a Government that doesn't have decisiveness written right through it. So, if this is the case, I hope that what you will do is ensure that all the secondary legislation we have—. It took 10 years to deliver the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016, remember—10 years. The Public Health (Wales) Act 2017 was seven years, something like that. So, I'm not sure that decisiveness is the hallmark of the administration.

It's definitely a hallmark of my tenure as a Government Minister, and was when I was previously a Government Minister as well. I tend to pick things up in the in-tray and say, 'Let's not hang about here, what does the evidence say, and let's come to a decision'.

The other thing you mentioned was in terms of a draconian response. I would simply say to you, to come back to the fact of what we are seeing, despite the licensing that many tracks now across the UK are subject to, we are still seeing hugely high numbers of injuries on the bends of these tracks, and fatalities. We're also seeing, not necessarily due to attendance numbers physically at a track like the Valley stadium, but actually because of the wider commercial wraparound of that, that even though that track has entered licensing fairly recently—and we welcome that, I have to say, as well, because it falls within a GBGB licensing regime—it's actually led to the increase in the number of events at that track, not necessarily to do with, again, the attendance, but the wider commercial wrapround. It is not a hard calculation to do, based on the number of injuries and fatalities on UK tracks, to say that if you increase the number of events at the one Welsh track, you will have increased numbers of injuries and fatalities. Why would it be exceptional? Why would it be different? So, far from being a draconian response, we've looked at the evidence. And it isn't only to do—. It certainly does not rest on a petition coming to the Senedd, although that had strong cross-party support across the Senedd; it rests on the consultation, the responses there, the evidence that was was put forward, but also GBGB's own analysis of the injuries and fatalities. This is a compelling case, on the basis of animal welfare and ethical grounds, to move to a ban on greyhound racing. So, I would simply argue, with real respect, it's neither draconian nor rushing through; it's timely, necessary.

But we are keen to work with all the stakeholders as well. That's why we've set up the implementation group. On that implementation group are not only the local authority, not only animal rehoming charities, but also Valley stadium themselves as well. I think that's really important, because we want to have from Valley stadium the engagement, to look at future alternative uses, but also, by the way, to gather the evidence on the commercial impact of this as well. I've probably lost slightly—. There was something else that I wanted to say, but I'm sure we'll come back to it.

Back to you, Sam.

Thank you very much, Chair. You mentioned there, Deputy First Minister, that this decision hasn't rested solely on the petition, but also on the consultation. But there's never been a consultation on a White Paper or a draft Bill; that was a wider consultation. So, is that the right way to make law in Wales—taking a consultation that isn't specific and directing it towards legislation?

We are confident that the right questions were asked during that consultation, because there were two questions specific to greyhound racing, and one of them addressed the issue of views on either licensing or a ban. Now, there was certainly a good number of people who saw licensing as a way forward. Of those people who saw licensing as a way forward, a good number of them had a preference for actually moving to a ban. I just want to make that clear. But the preponderance, the majority view there, was to move to a ban. So, we've had that response in the consultation. But, Sam, I come back to it as well: it rests neither only on the consultation nor a petition, but on the clear and compelling evidence of the injuries and fatalities on tracks.

So, you're confident that the way that that consultation was conducted is a way that legislation can be brought forward in future for future Governments?

Yes, we are, Sam, in this instant. Every piece of legislation is different, but every piece of legislation needs the compelling, credible, convincing rationale for why it's been brought forward.

I have to say as well, as a Government Minister and as a Welsh Government, we also then have to make decisions as to why we bring forward a particular policy, a particular legislative proposal. We are confident, in bringing this forward, we are doing it for the right reasons, for the reasons we've outlined already. But, Jackie, I don't know if you want to just add to that in terms of the consultation.

Yes. So, we did commit, in our response to the Petitions Committee, to consult on the ban on greyhound racing. That also was working alongside the wider work on animal activities and exhibits, and rather than put two separate consultations out—we did discuss this among the team, and with the then Minister—rather than consult twice with the same audience, we included questions on greyhound racing in that wider consultation, so therefore they were only responding to the one consultation. It was a lengthy consultation—we asked for evidence as well as 'yes' and 'no' answers to the questions that we asked, and we felt that, because it was targeting the same range of organisations, it made sense for the consultation to be one consultation that included questions on greyhound keeping and racing, and I think we had sufficient evidence back to get us to this position.

Indeed. And just to say, Sam, in terms of this and in relation to Alun's question about timing as well, I think, as a Minister, I responded in a timely manner to both assessing what was a large consultation myself, and going through it, on top of the other activities that I was doing, and then bringing forward the summary of responses in December 2024, and the Welsh Government's response followed in full, then, in June 2025. So, from my perspective, we responded to that consultation properly and then brought forward a considered response. But, as I say, it is for the Welsh Government to decide whether it's secondary legislation or whether it's primary legislation, to set out its reasons for doing that, and also to decide whether, on those ethical grounds as well, we should move forward with a ban. But it certainly did rest on the responses we saw in that consultation.

Okay. Deputy First Minister, would the budget have passed had the Welsh Government not proposed to bring this greyhound Bill forward?

I have no idea. It's not pertinent to my consideration of this legislation.

Okay. Thank you, Chair.

I'm bringing forward the legislation. I've brought forward many pieces of legislation in my time. That's what I'm very much focused on here, as opposed to, in this instance in front of this committee, the consideration of how it might relate to a budget.

I just think it's pertinent as to how legislation comes forward in the Senedd whether it's directly linked to a budget being successful or not.

There were wider considerations for other Cabinet colleagues, undoubtedly, in terms of passing the budget and the importance of passing a budget for the Welsh Government and public services. But the rationale for bringing forward this legislation, I've described, I think, quite coherently and comprehensively in the previous questions, was not related to a budget.

Can I just say two things? The first one is that this Bill is not very different to the wild animals and circuses Bill, which only dealt with one or possibly two circuses that came into Wales, so it's very similar to that. Secondly, it's not just petitions; there are a large number of us—and I include myself in that group—who have consistently asked for a ban on greyhound racing in Wales.

Indeed.

Thank you, Chair. No further questions.

I just thought I would say both of those for the record. Thank you. Over to you, Siân.

Good morning. What assessments have been undertaken in relation to the human rights impacts of the Bill, and what was the outcome of those assessments?

We've fully considered human rights implications within the legislation. We're satisfied the Bill is compatible with the European convention on human rights, including article 1, protocol 1 and article 8. In addition to the explanatory memorandum, Siân, a regulatory impact assessment was completed and published, and we'll also have additional impact assessments, which are being prepared, and they'll be kept under review in the passage of the Bill. I think this is important to say as well to the committee, because the work of the implementation group and the additional information that we have from the implementation group, including from Valley stadium in particular, will help us modify and bring forward additional impact assessments. But we are confident, Siân, that the Bill is compatible with the European convention on human rights.

Have you, therefore, had to take specific steps in order to limit the interference with the human rights of those affected by the Bill, as part of the assessment?

Yes, we do. In bringing forward this legislation, we need to make sure that we have a fair and proportionate balance between the protection of the rights of those affected by the Bill and the effectiveness of the proposed ban. So, this includes, for example, the potential for the repurposing of the track and also the long lead-in time that we've provided for the ban to take effect, subject to the advice from the implementation group. You will know that there's a period of time that they can introduce the ban from. So, the length of the lead-in time ensures that any impacts can be properly managed and mitigated, as far as possible.

The other aspect to highlight, Siân, is the enforcement powers and the powers of entry. So, in respect of that, in section 4, Schedule 2 to the Bill, Schedule 2 has powers of entry, including powers to enter dwellings and powers of inspection and seizure, but these powers to enter the dwellings must be if the occupier in charge of the premises consents or if a warrant is obtained from the magistrate. There are further details on the obtaining of a warrant, then, in paragraph 3 of Schedule 2, for the conditions that need to be met. So, we're confident, Siân, that we've taken into account the human rights impacts but also how we can actually limit the interference with the human rights as well.

And just to go a bit deeper into that, you've mentioned article 8 of the European convention on human rights, namely the right to respect for private and family life. Are you confident that the assessment that you've made of human rights has taken that specific aspect into sufficient account in terms of the enforcement provisions?

Yes, we are, Siân, but it is worth reflecting again, as in my earlier comment, that we'll bring forward subsequent impact assessments based on the feedback that we have from the implementation group, for which Valley stadium is one of the organisations in that stakeholder group. Now, I think that's important, as is the time that we have built in for the implementation of this, because this does give, then, the ability to take on additional information from Valley stadium or from others—from the local authority, et cetera—but it also gives a fair and proportionate time for the implementation date so that we can manage and mitigate some of those impacts. The crucial other thing is that this also gives the time to repurpose the track to other uses. So, rather than depriving of use, the repurposing for use, I think, mitigates the very human rights impacts around article 8 that you touch on.

So, you accept that, to all intents and purposes, the business that currently keeps that one track in Wales in operation will come to an end and that it will affect the human rights of those running the business, but you believe you have enough mitigation measures in place to strike the right balance in that regard. Is that a fair summary?

So, what this legislation seeks to do is to ban greyhound racing, as described within the legislation as to what greyhound racing is. It does not actually preclude the use of that track whatsoever for repurposing for future use. We've built in time in order to mitigate and manage the impacts on that, so the owners can look to alternative uses, and this is exactly what we are hoping can be explored within the implementation group as well, alongside the local authority and other partners. So, with those mitigations and the fact we've built in a timescale as opposed to a firm implementation date, subject to the views of the implementation group, I think it manages those impacts on human rights. And just to emphasise again, it is the prohibition of greyhound racing not the prohibition of the use of that facility for different uses is what this legislation does.

And just to turn to article 1 of the European convention on human rights, which protects the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, is that protected sufficiently in this legislation? Have you considered the effect on people's enjoyment?

We have indeed, and I won't rehearse again the measures we've taken to mitigate the human rights impact, but that includes the article 1 implications, and we're very keen, I have to say, in the implementation group to work with Valley stadium. In fact, my officials have requested further information on things such as commercial contracts, et cetera, from the implementation group on things such as attendance numbers, all of those considerations, so we have a really good understanding of the economic impact and so on. Yes, I won't rehearse what I've said already on the time, the work of the implementation group, the fact that the track can be repurposed for other uses—all of those—but we're keen to assess from Valley stadium some of the social and economic and financial impacts of any closure, and we'll keep on working with them and asking them for that information to be provided. That's why we may bring along additional impact assessments as we go forward as well, when we have additional information.

Thank you.

Diolch. Alun Davies.

Had work been done before this Bill was brought forward?

No, because the process that we've set in place with the stakeholder group enables that now to happen, and the group, I think, has met—three times?

Four times.

Four times now, and it's good, and I understand the meetings are a good and open exchange of information and views, but we are seeking more information from Valley stadium on some of the specific financial matters, so things like attendance, et cetera. So, we're hopeful, the sooner that that can come forward, the sooner we can update the impact assessments.

But you're asking Members to vote on a Bill, conceivably, without knowing the impact of it.

We're bringing those impact assessments forward as soon as we have the information, and we hope to have them before the full progress of this Bill—I’m looking to my legal colleagues here—before we get to the final third reading, as we know.

It's very unusual for a Bill to be brought forward without any knowledge of its potential impact. It's very unusual.

It's unusual, but it's not exceptional, and it's not unprecedented, and sometimes, when—[Interruption.] Yes, not to go back over the reasons and the rationale behind this legislation, but there is a reason to get on with this, and we have a mechanism to update those impact assessments. But in terms of the bringing forward of those—?

Yes. Perhaps I could add: a full assessment was done before introduction. An RIA—a regulatory impact assessment—was completed. Further assessments have since been completed. Some have been published. But there is some information that we still don't have, so the impact assessments will all be kept under review as the matter progresses, and they'll be updated as and when we're able to.

But it appears from the Deputy First Minister that some of the really key information hasn't been collected and doesn't appear in those impact assessments. So, I think that's a question for the Government to consider.

But I want to take you back to the rationale, just for a moment, because you said in answer to a question from Sam Kurtz that the budget process was a completely different process and not a part of your consideration, but the Welsh Government has made a number of statements, and I’ve got one in front of me here, 'Budget Agreement for the 2025-26 Final Budget', between the Welsh Government and Jane Dodds, and what that says very clearly—and it's written here—that

'A move to ban greyhound racing in Wales'

is a part of that agreement. The Welsh Government did not bring forward, as far as I’m aware, any proposals on this matter prior to that agreement, so it is difficult to disentangle the two, and for the Government to say, ‘We were going to work on this anyway; we just weren't doing any work on it’, and then all of a sudden, a budget agreement is reached, this information is published, and the Bill comes along.

I understand your point, but let me just stress again: there are two parallel but separate processes going on, one of which is to do with budget considerations, and those are serious matters for any Government, whether here or in the UK or elsewhere, and the other one is the rights and wrongs of bringing forward legislation on the prohibition of greyhounds. I am very clear—very clear—on the rationale for this legislation. Regardless of any consideration of budgets—regardless of, separate from—in my portfolio area, this is in my in-tray. I have a duty to consider, then, the evidence and the rationale for this. And it is on that basis, Alun—and I say this with all respect, because you are right, there were parallel discussions going on on budget things—it's not pertinent to me bringing forward this legislation. But I accept your point that this played into that separate process of discussions around consent for a budget process. But my bringing this forward is based on the ethical considerations, the injuries, the fatalities—all of the other things we've touched on.

I accept that they are parallel processes, what I don't accept, and find difficult to accept, is that they're entirely separate, and I think that's the point I'm trying to make, Deputy First Minister. Because it's very clear that you're bringing forward a Bill where impact assessments haven't been completed and where you're not ready to provide Members with all of the documentation that Members have a right to expect from a Government introducing legislation, and asking people to take steps to ban a currently lawful activity without the information that is required to make an assessment of that. That's where we are this morning, in this morning's session, and—

But I wouldn't want you to be under any misapprehension, the committee or yourself, Alun, that my bringing this forward is related to budget considerations.

Well, it is, because it says so in the document that the Welsh Government has produced.

But it is not. My consideration in bringing this forward is based on the animal welfare considerations and the ethical considerations. It was consulted on and there was a clear view expressed in that consultation. I have an obligation, as a Minister, to consider that and the Senedd debates and the other views that have been put forward. So, it is separate from—

I accept all of that. I'm entirely unconvinced by the argument that it's a separate process, because you and I were sat in the same meetings when some of this was discussed and there was clearly a linkage there, and Government itself has said that there is a linkage there in the statements it's made on the record. So, I'm not sure we're going to get much further on that this morning, but we are where we are on this.

So, in terms of taking this forward, I don't know if you've visited the Valley stadium at all—

No, I haven't, but my officials have, and I'm very keen to, actually.

I'm interested, therefore, how you think it can be repurposed. I have visited it and I find it difficult to foresee a different purpose for it. It's a greyhound racing track.

That's precisely what the implementation group, within their terms of reference, falls on the future use of that track.

But you've never seen it.

My officials have.

Your officials have, I accept that, but you've never seen it. As I say, I've visited it on one occasion and it's difficult to see how it could be used for other purposes. But there we go. Are you going to be providing compensation to all of these people, groups, organisations and businesses affected by this ban?

We do not feel that compensation is pertinent to these discussions because of the very way that we have put forward the process. So, we're looking at legislation, subject to the will of the Senedd, that does not put in place a fixed moment in time for the ban of the use. It provides a three-year period, if you'll notice, within the legislation, so it allows time for implementation. It allows time for repurposing, albeit that you cannot see a future use. But it'll be interesting to see what the local authority, Valley stadium, the owners and others come up with as potential future uses for it, and also the fact that the implementation group is there to actually explore these issues. So, we don't feel that compensation, when you can repurpose—. We have time built into this and the discussion that we've had on the deprivation of property, we're not depriving a property; it's the actual prohibition of greyhound racing on the property.

Which is the purpose of the property, of course.

At this current moment.

I'm sure that there could be a means of repurposing—you know, it's a track and there's some grass in the middle, and I'm sure there could be different uses for it—but that, of course, will cost money, and I doubt if the people who are currently the owners of the Valley stadium would want to spend that money, because they've built and maintained a venue for greyhound racing—that's the purpose, that's why they exist. So, if, for example, it was going to be a training facility for a local sports team, then that clearly wouldn't be appropriate for them. But that would mean that they've lost their ability to run their business and to operate their facility. Somebody else takes it on and the Welsh Government stands back and says, 'Nothing to do with us, guv.'

Well, we're doing a lot of hypotheticals there. The implementation group is actually set up with a terms of reference, one aspect of which is actually to explore the future use and to avoid this facility, this location being left derelict. It was one thing that we were very clear on. There needs to be a repurposing of this site and for it not to be left unused and unloved. Now, I'm not going to sit here and speculate on what that might be, and Valley stadium are the owners, and Valley stadium may well come forward with some innovative ideas on what this could be used for. I don't think these are people who will be lacking creative ability to think through this. You know, this is not the first situation where owners and managers of recreational facilities have repurposed facilities for future uses. I won't try and second-guess that, but that's exactly why the IG group is there, and also, Alun, why we've built in a three-year window, so that that time can be used then to say, 'Well, by this time we can see a repurposing or some other use of that site there.'

I'll leave it at that. Thank you.

Moving on, Sam.

Thank you, Chair. Deputy First Minister, 'greyhound' is not defined on the face of the Bill. I'm just wondering if you believe that this could cause any issues in going forward around potential dog breeds, et cetera.

Thanks, Sam. No, I've got no concerns with this. This came up on the previous committee that we appeared in front of as well. Greyhounds have very clear characteristics, they're very well known, not least by the Kennel Club. It's not like some of the difficulties around breeds of dangerous dogs, as defined within the dangerous dogs legislation. All racing greyhounds are registered with the British and Irish greyhound book, so we don't think that this is an area for any concern. A greyhound is a greyhound is a greyhound.

Okay, thank you. The offence in section 1(1)(a) of the Bill is for an operator of a stadium or a similar venue in Wales, and I know, following on from the discussion with Alun Davies—. But what could be considered as a 'similar venue', as that isn't actually defined in the Bill sufficiently clearly?

Thank you for that, a really good question. The term 'similar venue' we've used is to ensure that the prohibition captures all settings used for greyhound racing, not only purpose-built stadiums. So, the policy objective here, Sam, is to cover all those forms of greyhound racing at tracks. So, it would include commercial racing, amateur racing, hobby events of greyhound racing around a track or a similar venue. So, the policy intent here is the prohibition of tracks beyond purpose-built stadiums. So, it will not only apply to, in this instance, Valley stadium, but it will extend to, for example, training or trialling activities involving mechanical lures at any venue set up for the racing of greyhounds.

You brought in training there. So, if there is no mechanical lure, is that still deemed banned under this legislation?

I'll bring in my legal advisers here. But, no, it will require mechanical lures and within the legislation a stadium or a similar venue and that racing around a track. Just to point out that the high degree of jeopardy here, and to clarify for the committee why we've defined it in this way, is when the bends are taken. That's when the falls happen, the injuries happen, and the fatalities by and large. But I'll come to Holly.

That's correct. It's the mechanical lure that is required for the activity to be captured by the prohibition.

Okay. And is there a definition for 'mechanical lure'? Is it something that's self-motorised or is it someone driving a car and training dogs behind them? What's the definition of that mechanical lure?

There's no definition of mechanical lure in the Bill, but we're satisfied that it's clear in what it means. It's a well-known term in the industry of greyhound racing.

Okay. And then, in terms of the definition of greyhound racing itself, Deputy First Minister, are you satisfied that that's sufficiently clear in the Bill?

Yes, we are. Because of the reference to greyhound racing in a stadium or similar venue, the use of a mechanical lure around a track, this is what would be characteristic of greyhound racing, so it very much captures the policy intent.

Okay. Thank you. No further questions, Chair. Thank you.

Thank you. Siân.

Thank you very much. Am I clear in thinking that it's only operators and organisers who would be liable for any offences under the Bill—is that the case, that is, if there were to be greyhound racing taking place, it's the operators and the organisers who would be responsible and could be held to account under the law? Those who attend the races and the competitors and any other individuals present would not be part of that action. Could you confirm that that will be the situation under this new legislation, and do you believe that that is sufficiently clear on the face of the Bill?

Yes, thanks, Siân. We're satisfied that it's sufficiently clear on the face of the Bill. We're also satisfied that it's the right way to proceed, because then you have legally actionable consequences from this on the operator and the organiser, who we are confident would not be difficult to identify either. Rather than going after every participant, every attendee, every Tom, Dick or Harry, you go after the people who are active in operating and organising the event, whether that is within an organised stadium or, as we've previously discussed, not in a stadium but is clearly greyhound racing. It's the operator and the organiser, and, yes, it's very clear on the Bill.

Are the terms 'operator' and the 'organiser' terms that have been clearly defined in law?

'Operator' is defined in the Bill as the owner of a stadium or venue, or the person, other than the owner, with overall responsibility for the operation of the stadium or venue if that person is not present in the UK. We're content that that definition is very clear. 'Organiser' is not defined in the Bill, however we're content that it's also clear it's intended to have the ordinary meaning of the word.

Okay. I hope that that is going to be sufficiently clear on the face of the Bill, and perhaps you should consider that you should think about that further.

In terms of Schedule 2 to the Bill, there is a definition of 'premises' included, and that definition includes a vehicle and refers to a person

'who appears to be in charge of the vehicle.'

Could you explain to what that refers exactly, and do you consider that this wording allows such a person to be appropriately identified?

Thank you, Sian. Yes, we do think this is sufficient, that the person could be clearly identified. And just to say, it isn't novel; it is found in other legislation as well. So, if an application was made for a warrant by an enforcement authority under condition 4, then the court would have to be satisfied the condition was met before issuing the warrant. But, Holly, I don't know if there's anything you want to add to that.

No, I don't think there's anything further to add to that. Thank you.

I don't quite understand why this is needed in this context. Forgive me, perhaps I'm being daft, but a vehicle—how would that be relevant in this case?

Is that to be able to stop someone in their vehicle, when it's time to take action? Perhaps you'd need a warrant, because an offence has been undertaken. I'm not sure.

Let me bring Jackie in, Siân. Thank you.

It's just to cover all the bases, really. So, if they're out on a common and they've set up a track to illegally race greyhounds, there wouldn't be any premises there as such, but there would be vehicles where evidence could be gathered from.

Okay. In paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 to the Bill, condition 4 is that

'the occupier of the premises is temporarily absent'

and

'it might defeat the object of entry to wait for the occupier's return.'

Do you consider that the wording of this condition is sufficiently clear? And could you explain the purpose of that to me, please?

Yes, indeed, and, again, neither is this novel. It has got precedent within other legislation. So, the approach here is that if that individual, if the occupier of the premises, is temporarily absent—so, you can imagine the situation—but enforcement action is necessary, then you can take that action without, in layperson's terms, waiting for them to return. But a court would need to be satisfied that the conditions laid out within the legislation were met before issuing such a warrant.

Are you content that you have addressed every possible scenario within this legislation, bearing in mind that there perhaps won't be property to enter for an enforcement action or because an offence is being committed? Are there potential scenarios that you perhaps haven't thought about?

We'd be interested in what the committee thought on this, but, from our perspective, there will either be premises, as in premises we would identify as buildings, or there would be vehicles, and we've covered both of those bases. So, we can't envisage easily, Siân, an alternative where we may need to talk about powers of entry and enforcement, but you can certainly envisage a situation where, if somebody foolishly decided to flout the legislation and decided to run greyhound racing in an open field somewhere out of Range Rovers—other models are available—then the powers within this Bill would allow the enforcement action to be taken. I can't think of something that we've missed on that, but, if the committee has some idea, we'd be keen to hear your thoughts on that.

Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd.

Diolch, Siân. Alun.

I'll just conclude with a couple of questions on commencement. You've chosen a window of commencement, potential dates between 2027 and 2030. I suspect you're going to refer to the answer you gave me earlier on repurposing, but, just for the record, what led you to propose this window, this particular window?

I think it's a recognition that, as we've discussed before, we do not want this track lying empty and unused. That's one of the things that we're trying to avoid. But, in working through that, I think it is right that we engage not only with the owners, but with the local authority and others, to look at future use and repurposing of this. It could be commercial activity; it could well be. But, on that basis, rather than say a definitive date—‘it will be in 12 months’, ‘it will be in 24 months’—. The implementation group's work is well under way. We are looking for some further data and evidence that we need for some of our thinking on the impact assessments and so on, but we're also involved in that discussion around, ‘Well, what could be the future use and the mitigations that could be done?’ So, we think that that transition period could indeed be sometime between 1 April 2027 at the earliest, no later than 1 April 2030, that that three-year period gives sufficient time to actually work through these implications and for the track and for industry stakeholders and for GBGB to prepare for the transition to a ban.

I'm just interested that you made the case earlier for this legislation on the basis of a moral imperative, but it doesn't seem to be that imperative, in that you're prepared to wait five years, potentially, for it.

But I think it is right that, in terms of the human rights impact, we actually work with those stakeholders to mitigate those impacts, because even though, as we say, we firmly believe that we've got the balance right, that it's a fair and proportionate approach, in that fair and proportionate approach, it's incumbent on us to actually work with Valley stadium and with GBGB and the local authority to find that future use for that facility. So, that will require some time. That's why we're not rushing at the implementation; we can put the legislation in place, we can have the advice of the implementation group as to when the appropriate moment for the actual implementation of the ban comes into place. And I think that's the right way, then, to balance the human rights considerations as well.

Okay. The Bill doesn't demand any consultation on when Welsh Ministers will set a commencement date. Do you foresee consultation taking place on that?

No, I don't. I think this will be a matter—subject to the consideration of the implementation group and the advice they bring forward—for this or a future Minister to actually say, 'This now seems the reasonable and fair date for the plan to be in place', and then to move to a future use. So, no, not another consultation on this.

I'm content with that.

I've been used to—and I think other Members here have been used to—when we get the title of the Bill, it says 'short title'; with this, it uses the term 'title'. Does it mean anything different and why have you chosen it?

No. It doesn't actually mean anything different whatsoever. If the committee is minded—. We have spotted this; we'd be content for the heading to be altered if this is necessary. But is there a particular reason why we went for 'title', as opposed to 'short title'?

No. We'd be content for this to be altered by the Senedd clerks as a printing correction.

I think that it makes it easier for people who look at Bills to see consistency between them.

The last question from me. There used to be a lot of greyhound racing tracks in Wales. Most of them—well, all of them apart from Ystrad Mynach—have now closed. A number of them, including Skewen, which is very near to where I live, and next door to where my grandmother used to live, are now a housing estate. Are you aware of what's happened to the other greyhound stadiums that have been closed?

No, we haven't specifically carried out any survey of what's happened to them. But, yes, I do recall the Skewen one. I was a Gowerton boy; I do recall the Skewen one years ago now—years and years ago. But I suspect many of the tracks that have closed have been repurposed, indeed. What we want to make sure of is that we can actually plan our way to a repurposing, as opposed to risk leaving a site empty or derelict or with no commercial use for the current owners of that site. But, no, we haven't done that consideration, Chair. But you are right; some of these have found alternative uses.

Okay. Well, we've finished in time, which I didn't expect at the very beginning. Can I thank you and your colleagues for coming along and giving evidence to us? As you know, you'll get a transcript and an opportunity for you to check the record and, again, thank you very much. I hold personal views on this, but I'm sure at least some members of the committee prefer me not to express them. So, thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

Can I move, in accordance with Standing Orders 17.42(vi) and (ix), that the committee resolves to exclude the public from items 4, 9, 10 and 11? Do Members agree? Yes.

Croeso nôl. Welcome back to the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee. We will start on item 5, instruments that raise no reporting issues under Standing Order 21.2 or 21.3.

The Non-Domestic Rating (Description of Differential Multipliers)(Wales) Regulations 2025. These regulations specify the descriptions of hereditaments, which are units of property with a rating assessment, within the non-domestic rates base to which multipliers will apply from 1 April 2026. The regulations enable a lower retail multiplier for specific descriptions of hereditaments with a rateable value of less than £51,000 and a higher multiplier for hereditaments with a rateable value of more than £100,000 to be given effect. Senedd lawyers have identified no reporting points. Do Members have any comments? No.

Item 6 is instruments that raise issues to be reported to the Senedd under Standing Order 21.2 or 21.3, previously considered. The Sheep Carcass (Classification and Price Reporting) (Wales) Regulations 2025. The committee considered this instrument at its meeting on 6 October and laid its report the same day. Members are invited to note the Welsh Government's response to the report, which has since been received. Jen, do you have anything to add?

Thank you, Chair. Just to say that, in relation to the merits points that were raised, the discrepancy between the practical effect of the regulations taking place in England and in Wales is explained as an unintended discrepancy in the English regulations. With regard to the impact of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 on the effectiveness of these regulations and whether any assessment has been made of the legislative position in Scotland and Northern Ireland, the response confirms that England and Wales are following the same regime and the Government understands that Scotland and Northern Ireland intend to bring forward legislation to reflect that same regime.

Are we happy with the Government's response? Yes.

The Free-Range Poultrymeat Marketing Standards (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations 2025. The committee considered this instrument at our last meeting and laid our report the same day. Members are invited to note the Welsh Government's response to our report, which has since been received. Jen, do you have anything to raise on the Welsh Government's response?

No, Chair—nothing to add. Thank you.

Members, do you have anything to raise? No.

The National Health Service (Pharmaceutical Services) (Wales) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2025. The committee considered this instrument at its meeting on 24 March, where our report identified a potential drafting defect. The Welsh Government response indicates the opportunity to clarify the terminology will be taken when further amendments to the 2020 regulations are planned in summer 2025. An amending instrument wasn't received in the summer, and therefore we wrote to the Cabinet Secretary. This letter and his response are in our papers. He informs us that a statutory instrument will be laid early next year that will capture various policy changes to the provision of pharmaceutical services, and, at the same time, include the correction of the defect that this committee has identified. Members, do you have any comments? No.

Item 7, notification and correspondence on the inter-institutional relations agreement. Correspondence from the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs on—this is the one I have difficulty with—the Phytosanitary Conditions (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2025. The Deputy First Minister informs us of his intention to provide his consent for the UK Government to make these regulations applicable to Wales. His letter states that, in accordance with the plant health regulation, the Secretary of State approached the Welsh and Scottish Governments and Ministers for consent. He says that the regulations protect biosecurity by introducing or amending protective measures against high-risk pests of plants, and also carry out a technical amendment to the phytosanitary conditions regulation. He adds that introducing separate regulation in Wales, England and Scotland would risk divergence on biosecurity matters where policy is aligned. If Members have no comments, we'll move on to the next item.

Item 7.2, correspondence from the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs on the Organic Production (Amendment) Regulations 2025. The Deputy First Minister informs us of his intention to consent to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs making these regulations on behalf of Wales. He says that the proposed regulations intend to extend the expiry date of regulations that are already in place rather than creating any new policy. He says that they're expected to be laid before the UK Parliament on 22 October. Do Members have any comments? No.

Correspondence from the Welsh Government on meetings of inter-ministerial groups. A letter from the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales on the transport inter-ministerial standing committee. We have one notification this week of an inter-ministerial group meeting. The Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales informs us that the next meeting of the transport inter-ministerial standing committee will take place on 5 November, covering topics of road safety, HGV decarbonisation and vehicle emission trading schemes. He says he’ll update us after the meeting. Do Members have any comments? No.

Item 8, papers to note. We've correspondence from the Business Committee: review of public Bill and Member Bill processes. The letter from the Business Committee requests committees' views on Bill timetabling, in particular in relation to the Welsh Government's recent practice of publishing pre-introduction versions of Bills. We may wish to discuss a potential response in private session. Do Members have any comments they wish to make in public? No.

Item 8.2, correspondence from the Counsel General and Minister for Delivery: the UK Government's review of the UK Internal Market Act 2020. The Counsel General’s letter outlines the Welsh Government’s approach to legislation in light of the outcome of the UK Government’s review of the Act. She states that, while the Welsh Government remains of the view that the Act should be repealed, the outcome of the review of the Act offers an important opportunity to demonstrate how common frameworks can work effectively to support the functioning of the UK internal market and to work with the grain of devolution, and that the Welsh Government’s immediate priority is to work collaboratively with the UK Government and the other devolved Governments. She says:

'when developing all relevant legislative proposals—including in the context of primary legislation in the Senedd, or subordinate legislation made by the Welsh Ministers in reliance on powers conferred via Senedd Acts—engagement will take place on a four nations basis through the relevant Common Frameworks to explore interoperability and whether any exclusions from requirements of the Act are necessary.'

Do Members have any comments?

I would simply say that the UK Government has used the provisions of this Act in recent months, its financial powers, on at least one occasion, and that is to be regretted. The key issue for the Welsh Government—one of the key issues—was the financial provisions, which were excluded from the review. So, there does need to be a significant review of this legislation, notwithstanding what Julie James has said in this correspondence.

Okay. Thank you very much, Alun.

Correspondence to the Chairs' forum: consultation: reviewing committee effectiveness in the sixth Senedd. Members are invited to note our outgoing letter sent to the Chairs' forum last week. Do Members have any comments they wish to make? No.

Correspondence from the Minister for Children and Social Care to the Children, Young People and Education Committee: family drug and alcohol courts working group discussion paper. The Minister has written to the Children, Young People and Education Committee to share a discussion paper presented to the family justice network in September. Do Members have any comments they wish to make? If not, we’ll move onto the next item.

Item 8.5, correspondence from the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Planning: the Welsh Government’s legislative consent memoranda on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. The Cabinet Secretary responds to reports by our committee and the climate change committee in relation to Welsh Government legislative consent memoranda on this Bill. Both committees raised concerns in their reports around the Bill's provisions around nationally significant infrastructure projects, and so the Cabinet Secretary provides further information on this matter. He also refers to a recent consultation issued by the UK Government on streamlining infrastructure planning, which closes on 27 October. He states that, in this context, he is content to support the relevant provisions in the Bill. Do Members have any comments they wish to make? No.

As agreed earlier today under item 3, we'll now move into private session for items 9, 10 and 11.