Animal Welfare Bill

First, I declare an interest as chairman of the British Greyhound Racing Board. That is clearly a direct, pecuniary interest that is shared by few others, but I have taken advice from the House authorities, who have confirmed that it is all right for me to speak on the subject and offer the Committee my best advice. I will not table any amendments nor vote on any at subsequent stages. I hope that—given that greyhound racing is Britain’s third largest spectator sport, which is a little know fact—I may be forgiven if I speak for slightly longer than Back Benchers normally would on this very important issue. My only doubt about the excellent speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, was that the figure of 7,000 out of 30,000 dogs disappearing is not accurate. It has been put about for a long time, and it is largely greyhound racing’s own fault because we never published figures that are properly auditable as to the true situation. I expect to be able to produce such figures in the very near future. Roughly 10,000 dogs retire off official tracks each year. Some 3,500 are directly rehomed by the retired greyhound trust. That figure has multiplied by several times over the past few years. A lot more are taken home by their owners and live a comfy life on their sofas, and anyone who has had a greyhound knows that there is nothing better than a greyhound on the sofa. A number of others stay with their trainers. There are some who are not suitable for rehoming because they have a temperament fault—most greyhounds are wonderful but you get the occasional one—and they are euthanised. But the idea that they are disappearing into a dark hole or a black pit with stones around their legs is a myth—at least, from the point of view of the official greyhound industry, although I should point out that it is partly our fault that the myth exists. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, hit the nail on the head in moving this amendment. It is my considered belief that the problems of greyhound welfare today lie chiefly with the independent tracks. I got into greyhound racing only because I had a retired greyhound and joined the Retired Greyhound Trust when I took the job as chairman of the board, largely because I was interested in doing something about greyhound welfare. Partly out of sheer terror that the Houses of Parliament might abolish our sport and partly due to the fact that most people in greyhound racing genuinely love their dogs, as Dennis Turner, a past chairman of the All-Party Greyhound Group, will confirm, there has been a huge change not just in the facts but in the culture. I raised this matter in the House of Lords in 2001, and I have a full briefing, which I think was sent to all noble Lords, but anyone who is interested is welcome to a copy. Now, practically any sensible suggestion put forward for improving greyhound welfare is adopted almost immediately by the industry. We have protected the independence of vets on tracks; we have hugely increased the funding going to the Retired Greyhound Trust; every track must now have proper air-conditioning for the dogs in its kennels; and every track has a welfare officer responsible for greyhound welfare—usually the most senior official at the track. The situation has changed substantially. I am always willing to hear criticism of what goes on at the 31 official tracks. We immediately look at any sensible criticism and consider what, if anything, needs to be done. I think that many of my friends in the animal welfare lobby would recognise that. I do not believe that there is now a serious welfare problem for dogs running on official tracks. However, the 17 or so independent tracks are a problem, although that may be slightly unfair. We recently carried out a survey of the independent tracks and I should say that standards vary hugely. At the top end, some of the tracks do not fall that far short of the standards at official tracks. They have vets’ rooms and vets in attendance, for example. The main difference is found in the type of racing that takes place. At an independent track, the dog turns up in the owner’s car, whereas at an official track, it turns up in the trainer’s van. But that is not what matters; it is the standard of welfare and not the way in which it is delivered that is important. So at a few of those tracks the standards are not bad, but at some the standards vary from poor to appalling. When you read a case in the paper about greyhound cruelty, it can nearly always be tracked back to an independent track. For example, many noble Lords will have seen the recent report to the Welsh Assembly on greyhound welfare which highlighted terrible and ghastly cases of abuse of dogs in south Wales. At the time that the report was written, there were four independent tracks but no official tracks in south Wales. That gives a hint of the situation. I do not want to be unfair to my friends at the independent tracks. They are notably of an independent frame of mind and some robustness and I do not want to end up at the bottom of a pond with a stone around my leg myself. However, the problem lies at the less good tracks and it has to be tackled. Many independent tracks do not have vets in attendance; many have dogs racing under nicknames so that you cannot trace them afterwards; and many dogs are transported or left in cars without proper air-conditioning. Many racing surfaces are unsatisfactory. I have seen a track where dogs race down to the first bend along a very sharp incline with a bent inside running rail. It is a very bad track for any dog to run on, and the injury rate would reflect that. I have no doubt about the long-term solution. Most of these tracks are hanging on only by the scruff of their neck. The average attendance at the tracks that we surveyed was 180, and you find at some of them a primitive scene that will not last much longer. They are going out of business—they cannot compete in the modern leisure age. Therefore, inevitably and quite rapidly they will go out of business. Indeed, of the 17 that we surveyed, two went out of business between our starting the survey and finishing it. That is the rate of decrease in numbers that has been occurring. It is very sad for the people concerned but it is not sad for the dogs. The preferred solution of the British Greyhound Racing Board is that independent tracks that are up to it should convert to official tracks. To some extent, that would mean changes in their code and practices but nothing that they should resist. Indeed, we have two shining examples. A few years ago, Kinsley in Yorkshire converted from a ““flapping”” track to an official track. It has recently won a BAGS contract, which means that it has to be really well run. In 2005, Pelaw Grange in County Durham made the change. I was there recently. Jeff McKenna is a great man and he has converted the track from being independent. For the first time in the history of greyhound racing, we are prepared to make grants available to help tracks to make the transition, and we will send experts to tell them exactly what they need to do. It is made as simple as possible, and that is the long-term solution. In the mean time, what do we do about independent tracks? At present, the situation is under consideration by a Defra working party—the Greyhound Welfare Working Group—on which representatives of both welfarists and the greyhound industry sit. We go to a great deal of trouble to work alongside the moderate welfarists—not the kind of people who spat at my guests at the annual greyhound dinner. I think we all agree that we are very keen to work with moderate welfarists and to talk things through in an attempt to reach solutions. The present approach under the Bill is that secondary legislation will embody a code of practice which reflects principles and standards set out in the greyhound charter. That charter is the product of the Greyhound Forum, which meets tomorrow and is a joint body of welfarists and the greyhound industry, so it is not an industry ““fix””. It is chaired by Clarissa Baldwin of Dogs Trust, who will be known to many noble Lords. The code will be subject to public consultation and approval by negative procedure of both Houses. The charter will be subject to industry self-regulation, which, as the noble Baroness said, is currently carried out by the National Greyhound Racing Club. There are ways of ensuring that this regulation is open to discussion and involves a role for the forum as the body to which industry self-regulation gives account. I think that that is a reasonable model of how self-regulation under the Bill can work to provide better standards without too much bureaucracy. Even without the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and even if we had that secondary legislation, independent tracks will be in deep trouble. They have to change or die. The code of practice under the Bill is taken into account in criminal actions in the courts in deciding whether cruelty has occurred. Let us suppose that an independent track does not have a vet in attendance, as is the case at most of them. Let us also suppose that a dog is injured there and suffers, as can happen if there is no vet in attendance. If a prosecution is brought, the promoter has no defence unless he has a vet at the track. He will not be able to afford to pay a vet, who could cost £200 a night at a greyhound track. If the track joins the NGRC code—the official code—we will pay for that vet, but if it remains independent, it will not be able to afford a vet and will be in danger of breaking the criminal law, which not many of them know about. Although I shall not labour this, I also think that the Gambling Commission has a role here because it will not allow betting to take place at races where dogs are called Fido, Fast Jack and so on, when the previous week they had different names. In such circumstances, there cannot be open gambling and, without gambling, there would be no independent tracks. Beyond the sanctions that will exist naturally in the Bill, the Greyhound Welfare Working Group will shortly consider how the regulation that applies to official tracks can be extended to the independents. The amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, points out one possible way, but there is a variety of ways. However, the Committee can rest assured that they will end up properly regulated. At least, that is the case so far as concerns the greyhound industry, and I hope that it is true of Ministers as well. In conclusion, we owe a great debt to the noble Baroness for putting forward the amendment. She has gone to a lot of trouble to get to grips with this subject and has enabled us to debate it. We in the greyhound industry and sport will work with the Government to ensure that the secondary legislation under the Bill achieves what the amendment was designed to achieve and ensure that the problem of the independent tracks is dealt with once and for all.