Examination of Witnesses (Questions 545-559)
DR ANNETTE
CROSBIE, MAUREEN
PURVIS, JOHN
HAYNES AND
LORD DAVID
LIPSEY
16 SEPTEMBER 2004
Q545 Chairman: Now we move to the world
of greyhounds, which I must say having read the evidence I found
a fascinating insight to an area which I have to admit I do not
have a great deal of personal experience in. We welcome this morning
from the British Greyhound Racing Board: Lord David Lipsey, its
Chairman. Lord Lipsey, can you just clear up a little conjecture
amongst Members of the Committee: are you in any way related to
the David Lipsey the economist who wrote a seminal text which
if any student was studying the subject would have read?
Lord Lipsey: No. I benefited considerably
during my career, Chairman, from the confusion between the two.
He is actually Richard Lipsey and a lot richer than I am he is
too.
Q546 Chairman: I was about to thank you
for your contribution to my degree but I can put that back in
the box for another occasion. You are joined by Mr John Haynes,
a director of the BGRB and chairman of the Greyhound Trainers
Association, and Greyhounds UK are represented by Maureen Purvis.
Ms Purvis, what office do you hold?
Ms Purvis: We are just partners
in this organisation.
Q547 Chairman: You are partners?
Ms Purvis: Yes.
Q548 Chairman: And Dr Annette Crosbie.
Both of you are very welcome indeed. Can I at the outset thank
both organisations for your kindness in sending in very helpful
written evidence to guide us in our proceedings? Can I do the
same as I have done with all of the organisations? As you will
have gathered we have had a very large number of submissions and
a lot of material to get through, but it would be helpful for
us to have our card marked if you were able to, if you do like
anything in the bill, to identify what is the key thing you would
not like the Committee to forget as far as the things that you
approve of in the draft bill? Equally, what is the key issue of
concern that you equally would not like us to forget? I wonder,
Dr Crosbie or Ms Purvis, who would like to speak on your behalf,
if you would like to start?
Ms Purvis: I think our organisation
would favour the offence that is in the draft bill which is of
the failure to act so that cruelty does not have to be proved
but it can be foreseen. We would certainly favour that. Our unhappiness
with the draft bill relates, of course, relates to the fact that
the indication is that racing greyhounds, their needs are not
going to be addressed until 2010, if at all. The implication is
that there really is not a problem. I hope our evidence indicated
that there is something of a problem and actually spelled out,
which is not available in the impact assessment here, which is
the amount of money which is riding on their backs and which we
feel leads to countervailing pressures not to do anything about
the dogs because there is so much money at stake for the bookmakers
and the Government.
Q549 Chairman: Can I just before I move
on to ask the Racing Board to respond to that question just clarify
in my mind exactly the position that your organisation holds in
respect of greyhound racing. Your evidence touches on many important
issues about the welfare of greyhounds who race, but you say in
your second bullet point in the executive summary: "The draft
bill fails the greyhounds". I just want to be clear in my
mind: if all the points in your evidence were met in the context
of the bill and the industry were reformed in the way that you
have indicated, are you in favour or not of greyhounds racing?
Ms Purvis: Yes. We do not want
to ban greyhound racing. I have owned greyhounds for 15 years.
That is not our position. Our position is solely related to welfare.
Q550 Chairman: Fine. That is helpful
just to have that point cleared up. Lord Lipsey, your opportunity
to respond.
Lord Lipsey: I welcome the bill
in general because it is a much needed modernisation of a chaotic
bit of law. I particularly welcome the extension of the law to
cover sins of omission as well as commission with regard to cruelty;
that is a good thing. That is picking up Maureen's point. Where
I disagree with her is in her regret for the fact that matters,
particularly with regard to greyhound racing, are being left to
secondary legislation and there will be some period elapse before
that secondary legislation comes in. I think that is very sensible.
To try to design in detail for each individual industry on the
face of the bill would be a serious mistake. We would end up with
one of those massive pieces of legislation such as the Licensing
Bill which has been, shall we put it like this, disappointing.
Moreover, I cannot over-emphasise to this Committee, and I speak
as somebody who comes from the critical side on this industry
because that is where I started off- the speed of change at the
moment within the greyhound industry. There has been a sea change
in attitudes and it is backed by hard practical measures. By the
time we come to 2010, I think we will be looking at a very different
picture. It is entirely appropriate that a law which we hope is
going to last a very long time is adjusted, seen as it is when
it is introduced, and not a snapshot during this period of change.
Q551 Chairman: Could I move back to Greyhounds
UK. In your evidence you say that cruelty is institutionalised
in the current self-regulated world of greyhounds. So that we
can get a better understanding of the areas of concern which you
have over welfare for the dogs which are competing, if you could
just explain to us what you mean by "institutionalised cruelty".
If I understand the import of that part of your evidence, you
are saying the making of money and profit out of the racing of
greyhounds takes total precedence over anything to do with the
welfare of the animals. Could you just tease that out for me a
bit, please.
Ms Purvis: If I may quote what
a trainer said to me only this week: "If I take my dogs to
a track in the winter, to me the track is frozen—they have
not put enough salt on the track—but the vet who is employed
by the track does not say it is unsuitable for racing. I cannot
refuse to race my dogs because otherwise I will be penalised by
the National Greyhound Racing Club and fined possibly the best
part of £1,000, so the dogs have to race, because that is
my contract with the track, and maybe one breaks its leg."
That is the situation. Because the vets are employed by the track,
there is nobody who is independent, from the outside who can interfere
with this.
Q552 Chairman: Could I just ask again—because
I admit my ignorance of this and, indeed, of horse racing—is
there a parallel situation in horse racing, where a wholly independent
person makes a judgment as to whether the track is suitable or
not in the winter, for example, for national hunt racing?
Ms Purvis: I do not know enough
about horse racing. I do not know whether Lord Lipsey knows more
about horse racing than I do.
Mr Haynes: I believe there is
a clerk of the course who decides whether the track is safe or
not.
Q553 Chairman: So the clerk of the course
is an employed person by the race course?
Mr Haynes: Yes.
Q554 Chairman: There is not an independent
body, it would appear, in horse racing, to say, "It is not
right in welfare terms for the animals to race."
Mr Haynes: I do not believe so,
no.
Lord Lipsey: The clerk of the
course advises the stewards for the day, who have a measure of
independence—but there are, of course, analogies there.
I would just like to pick up on this point, because it is an important
one, about the independence of vets that is being cited, in order
to make my point about the speed of change. There is a perception
that vets who are employed by the track could be influenced by
commercial considerations. Most of the greyhound vets I have met
are sturdily independent people and I do not on the whole think
that happens. However, we have now dealt with that. Tracks now
get a grant of £150 a night (that is most of the cost of
a vet) from the Greyhound Racing Fund. We have now laid down that
in future, if any track seeks to sack a vet, they must get the
permission of the BGRB before they do so, otherwise that grant
will be withdrawn—and it is a very substantial sum of money.
If there was any perception before that they were not independent,
there is not now, because that absolutely gives us a stranglehold,
and I may say that the greyhound veterinarians, which whom I have
discussed this and with whom this policy evolved, are extremely
happy with this development. It just shows the progress we are
making.
Q555 Chairman: Ms Purvis is sending
body language messages. She wants to add something.
Ms Purvis: The BGRB have not said
what criteria they will adopt in being able to decide whether
the track would be right in sacking the vet or whatever. You will
have seen from Appendix H to the draft bill that we could be talking
about significant sums to a local veterinary practice if they
lost the contract with a particular track. This would be regular
money coming in, up to, say, £40,000 a year and possibly
more.
Dr Crosbie: Could I just mention
something too?
Q556 Chairman: Of course.
Dr Crosbie: That I do not like
the word "perception". At the World Federation Conference
2001, we had a vet from a Nottingham track—
Q557 Chairman: I am sorry, the World
Federation of what?
Dr Crosbie: Greyhound racing.
A vet from a Nottingham track stood up and said he was leant on.
The vet from Oxford stood up and said he was leant on. It is not
a perception; it is what happens occasionally at some tracks.
Lord Lipsey: Whether it is perception
or reality does not much matter because they will not do it now
because they are in danger of losing £150 a night. So far
as the criterion is concerned, any track to get itself into trouble
with the BGRB is not only losing money, incidentally; they will
get the most appalling publicity, which will put off people from
coming to the track. It would be commercial suicide and it just
will not happen.
Q558 Joan Ruddock: Are you not talking
about a situation where there is going to be a sanction against
the vet? That means that the vet stands his ground and ends up
being sacked. That is a pretty extreme scenario. The evidence
that is being put before us by Ms Purvis and Dr Crosbie is that
there is this leaning-on process and I think we all understand
that that happens. In the light of that, Dr Lipsey, why do you
say there has been such a sea change? If there is such a sea change,
why is it not appropriate in the draft bill to have measures relating
to greyhounds that come in sooner than 2010?
Lord Lipsey: I do not think we
will get it right if we try to draw up detailed regulation now.
Q559 Joan Ruddock: Could you suggest
what it is you need to get right?
Lord Lipsey: If Ms Purvis and
Dr Crosbie still have their concerns in two or three years' time,
I shall be very disappointed. We have a constant dialogue. We
often do not agree and we sometimes do agree, but I do not think
that many of the concerns that exist at the moment will still
be valid in two or three years' time. We want space to carry through
this reform change. My experience is if you put into a process
of that kind some sort of external detailed regulation, you do
not accelerate the process of change, you actually slow it down.
We are trying to bring about a culture change in the industry.
It is a very, very difficult thing to do and on the whole culture
change is best absorbed internally, as I believe it is being done
by the greyhound industry at the moment, rather than by people
attempting to impose it externally, which simply causes the usual
human reaction: "Who do they think they are?"
| 
