Welfare of Racing Greyhounds Regulations 2010

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke, particularly those members of the all-party group who spoke with such authority and have rendered this response somewhat redundant. I am grateful for the recognition that the regulations take the welfare of greyhounds forward substantially, and for the endorsement of noble Lords who have worked with the all-party group and in other quarters to produce the benefits which the regulations will bring. I noted a number of points of criticism. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, in his opening remarks, somewhat echoed by noble Lords on the Committee, said that the regulations could go further. The Government think that the Animal Welfare Act gives considerable protection to greyhounds. The additional factors that are part of the regulations take matters a good deal further. The basic provisions of the Act are nevertheless an important and substantial basis for the care of greyhounds. The debate highlighted that the position of racing may be well covered and safeguarded. I apologise that I said there were six independent tracks, but I was corrected. The figure is certainly seven and I do not know why on earth I dared to strain such august company with an incorrect number. Why do we not get figures from those seven tracks about safety? There is the obvious anxiety that they might not record injuries effectively if they thought that fingers would be pointed directly at them regarding their record compared to other tracks. We are interested in the overall welfare of greyhounds. We persist in our stance that it is better that the Greyhound Board of Great Britain produces overall statistics in which we can measure either the improvement or, heaven forbid, a deterioration in greyhound welfare, whereas identifying individual tracks might be a counterproductive measure—not least because I have again noted that noble Lords have suggested that someone can pay up for additional welfare. This is not an industry that is enormously replete with funds, and where the funds are, it is often difficult to prise them away for the benefit of the greyhounds themselves. There is no question of a compulsory levy. The industry would not stand for that in the consultation. I am, however, happy to report, although they have scarcely been mentioned in this debate, that an interest group related to greyhound racing is bookmakers, who are contributing towards a levy for welfare, and that gives extra resources. We can build upon what we have here. We are, of course, concerned about the aspect that concerned all noble Lords in this debate: the welfare of greyhounds after they finish racing. The noble Lord, Lord James, was entirely in order in making his contribution, and a very constructive contribution it was. One part that was very constructive, although I cannot follow him in his construction, is his point that if dogs are treated cruelly and painfully then, as intelligent animals, they sustain the mark of that cruelty. With regard to aggressive tattooing of the ears, though, we are not able to restrict greyhounds from the Republic of Ireland. We are part of the European Community, and we could not lightly take on distraint upon trade in those terms without facing potential wrath from elsewhere.