Welfare of Racing Greyhounds Regulations 2010

My Lords, we welcome the introduction of these regulations. There has been considerable concern about the welfare of greyhounds and with one substantial exception these regulations appear to address that concern. The key issue relates, as the Minister pointed out, to the fact that the 27 tracks covered by the Greyhound Board of Great Britain will not be regulated under these regulations. Those tracks will not need the licences introduced by the regulations, provided that they obtain UKAS accreditation. That is a very good device and we are confident that they will do so. I have a note regarding seven independent tracks which will require local authority licences. I have a number of notes on the whole issue of those licences, but, given that we do not wish consideration of other matters to be put under pressure, I shall skip to my principal concern: there is no specific cover for the welfare of dogs off the track. To this extent, there is a risk that the Government will create the illusion of tackling the greyhound scandal, as reported in the media, but fail to get to grips with its essential elements. There is nothing about breeding, which is a hot topic in the dog world. Above all, there is nothing about euthanasia. Are the Government content to rely on the general provisions of animal welfare to deal with this? I should indicate my interest as I occasionally attend the meetings of the Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare, which is meeting at this present time. It estimates that 4,728 retired dogs were not accounted for in the period under review. Even simple sums show that the annual cohort of racing dogs is around 7,000 out of 14,000 dogs racing at any one time—dogs have a two-year active life in the racing world. It would appear that 4,500 are rehoused. Everyone knows where a proportion of those dogs have gone, but there is a black hole in relation to the remainder. It is particularly disappointing that while the Government have conducted a consultation on this process, they did not consider that issue. The outcry about the number greyhounds killed at the end of their racing career was well publicised in the Sunday Times. At the time, one could have been forgiven for concluding that concern about premature death and the means by which it was achieved by far outweighed concern about conditions on racetracks. The Government claim on page 3 of the Explanatory Memorandum that there was insufficient evidence to support the introduction of regulations concerning retired greyhounds. As page 9 of the memorandum points out at paragraphs 3.3 and 3.4, the number of dogs not recorded as rehomed is several thousand. There is certainly no reason to disbelieve the figures for deaths quoted in the paper and on the radio during the passage of the Animal Welfare Act. To that extent, the regulations ignore this and they represent unfinished business.