Animal Welfare Bill

My Lords, we have had a fascinating debate with 12 speakers. This is another issue—and I do not say this lightly—on which progress has been made. There was no commitment originally in the Bill, but there is a commitment now, which I shall come to in some detail. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked me five specific questions about how the system would work on random inspections, drug testing, audit of enforcement, openness and transparency and quality assurance and inspection. The answer to all five is ““Yes””. Obviously, we have to look at the relationship between regulations and codes, so that we can address the issues through whatever the best route is. But whatever route is chosen, the answer to those five points is ““Yes””. The industry has to get its act in order; like a lot of others, by the way. I do not know the full history of all this. The Sunday Times piece was important, but in terms of the time span and what has happened in the past, as the noble Lord, Lord Christopher, said, clearly something does not add up with the numbers. There is no doubt about that. Therefore, it is the last chance for the industry to get its act together. Self-regulation is a preferable route in many areas, because it is quicker than the statutory route, but in this case, this is the last chance and the Bill gives us the facility to take action. The public are rightly concerned about this issue in light of the press stories in the summer. The regulated sector is making advances in welfare. My noble friend Lord Lipsey has highlighted the action taken by the National Greyhound Racing Club against trainers known to have used the yard at Seaham to dispose of unwanted greyhounds. I reiterate that there is little reliable, statistical evidence of systematic mistreatment of greyhounds on retirement. It is true that the figures do not add up in terms of the numbers retiring and what allegedly happens to them, but we do not have facts that would be reliable evidence. However, the industry should be doing a lot more to ensure that comprehensive records are maintained. The industry must be accountable for what happens to these dogs and there must be a better system for identifying dogs. The lack of comprehensive accurate records kept by the industry is bound to make people suspicious and not trust it—and rightly so. It is the industry’s problem and the onus is on it. We are still keen for self-regulation, but only if all concerned can be satisfied that open and auditable self-regulation is possible. This the last chance; there must be self-regulation under the circumstances I have described, otherwise a statutory route will be taken. More needs to be done and I understand that the NGRC is having discussions with the United Kingdom Accreditation Service concerning the way its activities should be evaluated. I plead guilty to not having been greyhound racing since I was probably too young to go—maybe eight or nine years old, when I was taken by my father, who was selling newspapers from a stall at Perry Barr greyhound stadium. I am sure that I went under a barrier. However, we at Defra believe that the NGRC has an image problem. I do not know why it is called a club; that gives the wrong impression. It suggests a closed shop, a private members’ club where no one is admitted unless they are a member. That does not give a good impression. It suggests some kind of exclusive closed shop and is not the sort of image that we or Parliament would want from a body responsible for winning the hearts and minds of those who do not consider the NGRC to be a suitable welfare regulator. We start from the premise that it has not been suitable and we want to give it a chance to become suitable. The public does not trust it and the body has one last chance—it has been seen to be making a move and that is important. It is also evident that the British Greyhound Racing Board needs to look carefully at marshalling its resources to boost the funding it has already allocated to deal with welfare matters. We are fully aware that many welfare groups are very sceptical that the NGRC can ever be a fully effective regulator. I have been on the receiving end, as have noble colleagues, of representations from the third sector—welfare groups. Defra’s greyhound welfare working group has achieved much in opening up a dialogue between the racing industry and welfare organisations. We must acknowledge that much remains to be sorted out. The industry and welfare organisations were able to work successfully together in drawing up a greyhound charter and, with give and take on both sides, there is no reason why we cannot produce regulations and a code of practice that is broadly acceptable; but it must fill proper criteria. The Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare has also set up an inquiry into the welfare implications of greyhound racing. We welcome that initiative. The inquiry will report in April next year and we shall consider its recommendations and how they fit in with what we believe can be achieved. The amendment seeks to force the Government into introducing a licensing scheme within two years of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. However, it would have the effect of ensuring that any provision on greyhounds that had not been made within two years of Royal Assent could not be made at all. I am not praying in aid a technical defect, because we could put that right at Third Reading. If we are going to legislate, however, we have to do it with precision and not look as though we did not understand the full consequences of the legislation. The amendment would force the Government into an unprecedented situation of being required to produce regulations by a certain deadline, without any obvious sanction if we failed to do so. That would be a problem, as we could lose our power to regulate greyhounds—that would be the consequence of the amendment as it is. I am not resting my case on that; I am just pointing it out in case there is a desire to come back on the issue at Third Reading, as noble colleagues are fully entitled to do. Concerns over the timetable for introducing regulations on greyhounds have been expressed by many Members. If the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment—notwithstanding the fact that she could come back with something—I will commit on behalf of the Government and Ben Bradshaw, the Minister with day-to-day responsibility for these matters, to bringing forward regulations and a code to ensure standards at greyhound racing, to be introduced by the end of 2008 and to come into force by April 2009. I repeat this, because it has to be the case. We cannot do everything at once. The resources are not there in the department. We have had to set priorities on how we bring the various parts of the legislation into force. Indeed, in some areas, we have not yet made commitments or have said that we will introduce codes and regulations as soon as possible. In other areas, we have been able to make commitments and bring them forward earlier than we originally promised. This is an area that was not on the radar, but, as I said, we will get something into force by April 2009 and provide a commitment that any proposals will involve regulation backed up by a code of practice. This is the last chance. If the industry wants statutory regulation—so that, in effect, it is taken out of the hands of the people who are doing it now—it should do nothing, in which case it will succeed. I wish the industry well—and I wish my noble friend well—but it has some serious image problems, which we must make abundantly clear to it. Parliament requires action. If the action is not there, Parliament will take the action.