Animal Welfare Bill

moved Amendment No. 42:"After Clause 8, insert the following new clause—" ““GREYHOUND WELFARE (1)   Where racing tracks are not regulated by the relevant practising body, they shall be required to be so under this section. (2)   For the purposes of this section, the relevant practising body is such body as from time to time the Secretary of State may by statutory instrument specify. (3)   The relevant practising body shall issue guidance subject to approval by the appropriate national authority which provides for— (a)   independent veterinary attendance at race meetings, (b)   welfare protection for retiring racing greyhounds, (c)   the identification of greyhounds employed for racing purposes, (d)   the licensing of kennels, and (e)   the maintenance of tracks.”” The noble Baroness said: Following our earlier comment about too much legislation and too much Christmas-treeing, I almost hesitate to move this amendment. But we are in Committee and this is very much a probing amendment, although it concerns a very serious issue that faces a particular part of this form of entertainment, as one might call it in its widest sense. My honourable friend Mr Philip Hollobone raised this issue in another place. I understand that of the 30,000 greyhounds that race each year, some 7,500 disappear. When my honourable friend moved his amendment, he linked it to the Gambling Act 2005, and, as noble Lords will have noticed, we have chosen a different approach. We read the response from the Minister in the other place and realised that trying to move an amendment relating to the Gambling Act was not appropriate, but the issues are still there. The issues that need to be addressed by the greyhound industry are complex, and I believe that they are inseparable from the whole question of greyhound welfare. Without good health and high greyhound welfare standards, the industry will lose credibility and respect, which could in turn seriously damage the industry as a whole. While the National Greyhound Racing Club welcomes the duty of care that is in the Bill, it remains seriously concerned about the welfare of greyhounds that race on unregulated tracks. The Minister in another place suggested that the welfare offence would improve greyhound welfare, and I am sure that would be true to a certain extent, but it would only apply once an animal has suffered. We want to stop suffering before it happens. The amendment would implement changes in the culture of greyhound racing in the industry. While the majority of the tracks—I believe some 31—have signed up to the greyhound industry’s rules as drawn up by the National Greyhound Racing Club, there remain between 13 and 17 unregulated tracks, which are not subject to the same stringent rules as their regulated counterparts. It is that culture that the amendment seeks to change. The regulated tracks are subject to the rules of racing established by the National Greyhound Racing Club. Those regulations include identification and registration, so that retiring greyhounds can be traced back to individual owners and trainers. In the event of a missing greyhound, the National Greyhound Racing Club’s infrastructure is set up to punish those who fail to stick within the rules of racing by having the offenders withdrawn from regulated practice. In another place, my honourable friend said that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee is unconvinced by the argument that the greyhound racing industry should be allowed until 2010 to regulate itself and improve its own welfare standards. The points listed under subsection (3) of the amendment demonstrate the categories needed to be covered by regulation of the industry. Those categories are currently fulfilled in the National Greyhound Racing Club’s regulations and they have stood up to challenges in high courts. The first two subsections would ensure that there was no need to set up a new body. The industry self-regulates effectively at present, and it is keen to extend to unlicensed racetracks the high standards that it has set. As the Minister in another place stated:"““We have not ruled out regulating greyhound tracks if self-regulation proves not to work””.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/3/06; col. 1408.]" I would be grateful if the Minister, when he responds, can assure us that Her Majesty’s Government will be able to come back with further information on Report. I beg to move.