The first group of amendments relates to the definition of greyhound racing. The lead Amendment in this group is amendment 3, and I call on Rhys ab Owen to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendment in the group.

Amendments 1 and 2 withdrawn.

Amendment 3 (Rhys ab Owen) moved.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. This is a simple Amendment, to leave out 'around' and to insert 'on', but it will make a big difference. As it stands, greyhound racing relates only to running around a track. However, in my view, this is a huge loophole that does not futureproof the Bill.

When I raised this at Stage 2, committee members opposite me stated that they thought the curvature of the track to be a defining characteristic and questioned the commercial viability of anything other than the current model in Wales. In response, the Deputy First Minister advised that

'the drafting reflects industry norms and conventions'. 

However, it is viable to arrange straight-track racing. All racing in Spain is done on straight tracks. Look at New Zealand, where a straight track has opened and is seeing active use, as many as 12 races a day. They are learning from Australia, where straight-track racing is firmly entrenched, Dirprwy Brif Weinidog, within the weekly racing schedule. I read in preparation for tonight an article in the New Zealand Herald, which stated that, last year, on the straight track in New Zealand, a punter placed a bet of NZ$30 on straight-track races. He won around NZ$780,000. Clearly, the track does not have to be a round track for the betting sector.

Also, straight-track racing can be even more dangerous. Listen to what a Greyhound Board of Great Britain trainer said to the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee of the Scottish Parliament in March 2024. This is what they say:

'Straight tracks could have an adverse effect, because a dog has to run faster in a straight line over 500m than it does when there is a bend. They do not keep up the speed on the bend, although they might get up to a good speed, but, if they were to run flat out for 500m, there would be more chance of injury.'

As the Battersea Dogs and Cats Home told us,

'If the intention is to stop all Greyhound racing'— in Wales, and that is the intention—

'then we would suggest the Bill looks beyond that which is currently undertaken in Wales'.

My amendments would, as the Cut the Chase coalition described, 

'act as a preventative measure in terms of the future facilitation of racing on straight and/or other shaped tracks in the future.'

Please support these common-sense changes: remove 'around' and change it to 'on', to close one of these massive loopholes. Diolch yn fawr.

As was the case in the previous stages of this Bill, and as I know some other parties are doing, Plaid Cymru Members will have a free vote on the issues discussed at this stage of consideration of the Bill.

Members will recall that I previously probed some of the issues around the use of the words 'around' and 'on', and I'll be frank that I was persuaded by the Cabinet Secretary's response at the time, although, in fairness, I'm looking forward now to hearing what the Cabinet Secretary's response is to the comments that we've just heard. However, I have been persuaded, actually, that the curvature is a factor in some of the issues that are trying to be addressed here, and that was presented to the committee quite clearly in evidence. I don't believe that running a straight line would be commercially viable in the way that maybe has been outlined, because obviously the only track we have in Wales is of a curved nature, and I don't think that developing an industry around the length of straight running that you'd need is viable, but clearly I'll listen to what the Cabinet Secretary has to say. But I am minded, I have to say, to vote in the same way as I have done in previous stages.

I call on the Deputy First Minister.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Dirprwy Lywydd. I can't support Rhys's amendments 3 and 5, which propose to change the definition of 'greyhound racing' in the Bill. As you rightly say, these amendments were brought forward at Stage 2, and I'll again set out clearly why I'm unable to support them at this stage, but I will elaborate further on the points that the Member has raised and to illuminate the matters further for other Members in the Siambr today.

So, amendments 3 and 5, as we've heard, seek to change the definition from 'around' a track to 'on' a track. The definition of greyhound racing currently drafted in this Bill involves setting greyhounds to run around a track, which is indeed intended to capture the curved nature of greyhound racing tracks. Now, the wording is intentional and very deliberate, as it captures the curved design of the tracks, where evidence shows the greatest risk of harm is prevalent. The drafting reflects established industry norms and represents a clear reflection of current practices. Now, greyhound racing on tracks that are not curved in nature is not undertaken in Wales or the UK, and the risk of such activity emerging is considered to be low. So, for these reasons, I cannot support amendments 3 and 5, which seek to broaden the definition beyond what we believe is necessary—[Interruption.] Let me continue my remarks just for a moment. What is necessary, what is proportionate, and what is grounded in the Welsh and UK context.

During the Stage 2 debate—pardon me, my voice is slightly husky at the moment—committee members were supportive of our rationale behind the definition, highlighting indeed that it had been tested in scrutiny, and the same amendments at Stage 2 were not supported. Jane, happy to give way.

Thank you very much for taking this short Intervention. You said that the risk is very low, but it is a risk, and surely the replacement of one word with another means that that actually minimises and reduces the risk, and is absolutely not harmful in any way, as I understand, to the Bill, but if it continues, and if there's somebody who wants to come up with this particular way of racing, could be harmful to dogs. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

So, I said I was going to elaborate, and I will now elaborate. You've cued me up very, very nicely indeed, but before I elaborate, I'm going to turn and take an Intervention from across the other side of the Chamber.

Sorry, I wanted to understand, in the drafting, why it couldn't have been drafted 'on or around'. Surely that would have just resolved all issues.

Right. Thank you, both, because that's quite helpful. I've explained in my opening salvo, if you like, exactly why this reflects current norms of racing, both within Wales and within the UK context. It's designed to capture the curvature of a track where the risk of harm, or indeed fatalities, on the evidence, is indeed the greatest. That's why it's been drafted as it is for that very purpose, but let me go a little bit further in response to Jane.

If we change the definition of the track to capture things that may happen at some point in the future hypothetically, it could risk being unwarranted, because what you're doing is prohibiting a theoretical model of racing that does not occur, rather than focusing on the prohibition of the real, evidenced risks that this Bill is designed to address. Straight-line racing, just to be clear, does not occur in Wales, or more broadly in the UK. The likelihood of it emerging in Wales is considered very low. Industry representatives were very, very clear in scrutiny that such tracks would not be commercially viable, Jane, that the infrastructure required is substantial and the costs are high, therefore removing any commercial incentive to operate them here within Wales or the UK. So, in these circumstances, widening the definition to cover an activity—straight-line racing—that does not take place in Wales and is highly unlikely to take place, and for which no clear welfare benefit has been evidenced and demonstrated, would not represent good law making.

We are aware, by the way, Rhys, that indeed straight-line racing is being trialled—pardon my voice—in parts of Australia, and we will monitor the evidence that is emerging very closely. But given that straight-line racing remains new, and, indeed, under evaluation even in Australia, and that no substantial body of evidence has yet demonstrated the comparable harm with curvature tracks or reduced risk, we do not believe that it's good law making, that it would be proportionate or necessary for Wales to include straight-line racing with the prohibition at this time. So, I understand the spirit in which this is being moved, but we don't think it is appropriate or proportionate within this legislation. For that reason, we would ask Members to oppose these amendments.

Rhys ab Owen to reply.

Simply, I just don't understand your logic, Deputy Brif Weinidog—'on' would also catch a curved track. And this is not a hypothetical idea. Straight-track racing is viable and is happening in Spain, New Zealand and Australia. If the intention of this Bill is to ban greyhound racing, we should ban greyhound racing on all tracks, not allow a massive loophole, because the betting industry will want to stop the banning of greyhound racing, and will look for loopholes. And there is a clear loophole that will make this legislation clearly unenforceable. I have no idea why you're carrying on, because one small change, one small word, will close that loophole completely. I just don't understand. Straight-track racing could happen in Wales, and one word would capture it, round and straight. Straight-track racing would make a mockery of the intention of this Bill. You have two choices: you can leave this gaping loophole open, or you can legislate sensibly by seeing that this is happening in other countries, and use my Amendment to fill this clear gap. Diolch yn fawr.

If Amendment 3 is not agreed, amendment 5 falls. The question is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 3. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, seven abstentions and 30 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

Item 15. Amendment 3: For: 15, Against: 30, Abstain: 7

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 4 withdrawn.

Amendment 5 fell.