The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chairman:
Mr.
Christopher Chope
Benyon,
Mr. Richard
(Newbury)
(Con)
Curtis-Thomas,
Mrs. Claire
(Crosby)
(Lab)
Engel,
Natascha
(North-East Derbyshire)
(Lab)
Farron,
Tim
(Westmorland and Lonsdale)
(LD)
Fitzpatrick,
Jim
(Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs)
Howell,
John
(Henley)
(Con)
Kawczynski,
Daniel
(Shrewsbury and Atcham)
(Con)
Kumar,
Dr. Ashok
(Middlesbrough, South and East Cleveland)
(Lab)
Ladyman,
Dr. Stephen
(South Thanet)
(Lab)
Marris,
Rob
(Wolverhampton, South-West)
(Lab)
Purnell,
James
(Stalybridge and Hyde)
(Lab)
Todd,
Mr. Mark
(South Derbyshire)
(Lab)
Turner,
Mr. Andrew
(Isle of Wight)
(Con)
Watkinson,
Angela
(Upminster)
(Con)
Williams,
Mr. Roger
(Brecon and Radnorshire)
(LD)
Wright,
David
(Telford) (Lab)
Gosia
McBride, Committee Clerk
attended the Committee
Fourth
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Tuesday 9
February
2010
[Mr.
Christopher Chope in the
Chair]
Draft Welfare of Racing Greyhounds Regulations 2010
10.30
am
The
Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(Jim Fitzpatrick): I beg to
move,
That
the Committee has considered the draft Welfare of Racing Greyhounds
Regulations
2010.
It
is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr. Chope. I wish to
make the Committee aware that it is almost 10 years since I
introduced a private Members Bill on the welfare of racing
greyhounds, so naturally I am pleased to introduce the regulations
today. They meet the Governments commitment given during
debates on the Animal Welfare Bill to introduce welfare regulations for
all racing greyhounds, and will create minimum welfare standards for
greyhound tracks in England without imposing disproportionate burdens
on an industry that is already subject to the high standards required
under the Animal Welfare Act
2006.
I
have recently met several groups of people who are concerned about the
welfare of greyhounds, and I know that they would have preferred
regulations that covered many more aspects of the sport. I listened to
their worries, but the Government are confident that the regulations,
combined with the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act, will provide
significant protection for racing greyhounds. The regulations require
all English tracks to meet the same minimum welfare standards, which
will either be enforced by the local authority or by an organisation
that has been recognised as an enforcement body by the United Kingdom
Accreditation ServiceUKAS. Our consistent advice to the
self-regulated sector of the greyhound industry has been that, to
remain self-regulated in the 21st century, it must have UKAS
accreditation.
We
have been assured that the Greyhound Board of Great
BritainGBGBis on schedule to secure accreditation, and
that it will be in place by the end of March. UKAS accreditation will
ensure that there is external, independent oversight of the enforcement
work of the GBGB, so it would be unnecessary to require its tracks to
obtain a local authority licence. Most tracks in England are members of
the GBGB, and GBGBs UKAS accreditation will ensure that the
welfare standards are being enforced. The remaining six or so
independent tracks will be required to be licensed by the local
authority to the same
standards.
All
tracks will need to have a veterinarian present for all race meetings,
trials and sales trials. The veterinarian must inspect each greyhound
before it runs and administer treatment to any greyhound that is
injured while running. The vet will be required to make a record to be
kept by the track of any greyhound that is injured during a race or
trial. The records can be used by the track and the
track vet for the long term to judge whether there are improvements that
track managers can make to reduce the number of injuries. The
regulations will also require that vets are provided with appropriate
facilities to carry out their
work.
All
greyhounds that race and trial at tracks in England will be required to
be permanently identified by both earmark and microchip, with the
details placed on one of a number of databases that are available to
hold such records. The criteria for suitable databases are set out in
part 2 of the schedule to the regulations. The GBGB has its own
database, with standards that meet the requirements under part 2 so
most dogs will be on one central database. The remaining small minority
of greyhounds that race only on independent tracks also need to be
chipped and tattooed, but their details will all need to be recorded on
a suitable
database.
Many
people are concerned about the fate of retired racing greyhounds. I am
happy to report that the industry is taking the rehoming of greyhounds
far more seriously than it used to do. The number of dogs rehomed by
the Retired Greyhound Trust has increased from fewer than 2,000 in 2001
to more than 4,500 in 2008, and we urge the industry to continue its
good progress. The requirement that every greyhound be microchipped
will also help to improve the traceability of greyhounds after they
have left the sport. Tracks will be required to keep records of all
greyhounds that race or trial at the track and owners and trainers will
need to produce an identity card the first time that the greyhound runs
at the track under their
ownership.
Tracks
will also be required to keep kennels for at least 20 per cent. of dogs
that attend a meeting. The GBGB requires kennels for all greyhounds
that race. That is aimed at maintaining integrity, and we do not
believe that we can justify for welfare purposes requiring all
greyhounds to be kennelled. However, we accept that some kennelling
must be available when trainers bring multiple greyhounds to a meeting.
It might take independent tracks some time to install such kennels, so
we have provided a lead-in time for that requirement.
The
regulations are a proportionate and targeted response to the welfare
problems within the industry. The Department for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs is committed to reviewing the regulations in five years,
so if they need to be amended, extended or tightened up, there will be
an opportunity to do so then. We shall also review the effectiveness of
the microchipping requirement two years after the regulations come into
force. However, for now and for the first time, a set of standards will
apply to all tracks in England. The regulations will ensure greater
welfare at tracks, where injuries are most likely to occur, and will
improve the traceability of greyhounds, during and after their racing
lives. I commend the regulations to the
Committee.
10.35
am
Mr.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con): It is a pleasure to be
under your watchful eye, Mr.
Chope.
I
welcome the opportunity to discuss the long-awaited regulations. Every
sport that involves animals must learn the lesson that, whatever it is
doing in animal welfare work, so much can be undone by unattractive and
unpleasant images appearing on our television screens and in our
newspapers. The mass grave and the
sight of dead greyhounds in wheelbarrows, which we all saw in 2006 at
the site in Seaham, County Durham, was a striking image. As we take the
regulations forward, perception figures as much as
reality.
Both
welfare organisations and members of the greyhound racing industry have
almost unanimously acknowledged that regulation of the industry is
needed. I have some concerns over certain aspects of the regulations,
which I shall raise in a moment, but my party and I are supportive of
their aims. In fact, we would like to have seen the regulations
soonerit is hardly lightning, in terms of legislation. We have
waited four years since the promises made in the Animal Welfare Act
2006, but we are pleased to see the regulations
today.
We
must acknowledge, importantly, that progress on welfare has been made
by the majority of the greyhound racing industry. The creation of the
regulatory body, GBGB, has increased welfare funding; it has moved
towards UKAS accreditation for its tracks, as the Minister said. Those
steps are important, but such improvements are at present confined to
GBGBs tracks, whereas what we are talking about today are the
six out of 33 where the UKAS accreditation will not apply. Even though
that is a small percentage of the total tracks, a much larger
percentage of dogsmost greyhounds in the countrywill at
some point race on the six tracks, so the regulations are vital.
Considerable variation in welfare standards continues among the small
minority of unregulated, independent tracksit is important that
such tracks are brought into
line.
We
are supportive of measures such as microchipping of all racing
greyhounds. It would be interesting to see how microchipping works in a
regulated industry, in that we would like to see microchipping spread
much wider, across the whole dog world in this country. If we cannot
achieve that in such an industry, it would be hard to say how we could
possibly achieve it beyond the racing greyhound industry, although I am
very confident that we
shall.
The
compulsory attendance of a registered vet at race tracks is also
welcome, as are the minimum standards for the condition of track
kennels. All such measures will go some way to ensuring the health and
well-being of thousands of dogs around the country, as well as making
improvements to the important issue of traceability of racing
greyhounds, from puppy to
grave.
We
must address the elephant in the room: many individuals and welfare
organisations are justifiably concerned about the remit of the
regulations. According to the RSPCA, racing greyhounds spend just three
to six hours of every seven to 14 days at the track. The Dogs Trust
estimates that more than 80 per cent. of a racing greyhounds
life is spent at their trainers or breeders premises.
Yet the regulations before us have no mention of welfare standards
beyond the
track.
I
accept that certain regulations may be appropriate for the track but
not for off it. As the Minister said, the Animal Health Act and other
legislation provide for animal welfare standards off the track.
Similarly, it is true that any animal is covered by a wide variety of
provisions under such legislation, but the Animal Welfare Act does not
go far enough and the argument can just as easily be applied to on the
track as off it. It seems a little anomalous that, while the Government
are concerned about the disparity in welfare standards between
independent tracks, they seem unconcerned that that
disparity could be mirrored in breeders and trainers
premises off the track. It is worth looking at the example of the horse
racing industry, which I concede is a vastly different sport. It has
roughly 70,000 racehorses with registered trainers, and the stables
inspectorate, paid for out of the levy, manages to regulate
trainers establishments with only five inspectors for the whole
United Kingdom. With 14,000 greyhounds, there must be a way of ensuring
that there are consistent animal welfare standards on a more local
basis at no huge cost to the industry, or certainly not to the
taxpayer. Will the Minister expand on his argument for choosing not to
address the welfare of racing greyhounds beyond the
track?
The
explanatory memorandum that the Ministers Department helpfully
provided states that 87 per cent. of respondents called for regulations
to reach beyond the track. Further concerns were raised about how
enforceable the regulations will be. Local Authorities Co-ordinators of
Regulatory ServicesLACORShas expressed concern about
enforceability by local authorities, the bodies charged with
enforcement. Will the Minister tell us what discussions he has had on
enforcement with local
authorities?
There
are also questions about the accessibility of the data that will have
to be collected by tracks under the regulations, such as the attending
vets treatment records and the register of injuries. It has
been suggested by some welfare organisations that the records will be
of little benefit if they cannot be requested by licensing authorities
and vets. It is unclear in the regulations who will have access to the
records, and obviously there are data protection issues, but we do not
want to have records kept for records sake. I would be grateful
for the Ministers reassurance on that point and also on the
retirement of greyhounds, which is of concern to many Members in the
House and a large number of our constituents. I was interested to see
in the explanatory memorandum that the all-party group on animal
welfare has calculated that a minimum of 4,728 dogs each year in Great
Britain were unaccounted for after their racing lives had finished. As
the Minister said, much work has been done, and that is welcome, but
much more could be done to address peoples
concerns.
While
I have concerns, some of which I hope the Minister will address, like
many welfare organisations I am glad to see measures in the regulations
that will result in a marked improvement to the welfare of racing
greyhounds. We must act swiftly to ensure that coherent welfare
standards are established, that racing greyhounds are protected and
that the integrity of this excellent sport, which is enjoyed by many
thousands of people, is
maintained.
10.43
am
Mr.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD): It is a
pleasure and privilege to serve under your chairmanship this morning,
Mr. Chope. I will not detain the Committee for long, because
the hon. Member for Newbury has been comprehensive in his response to
the regulations that have been set out by interested bodies. It is a
privilege to have animals under ones care, ownership and
management, and it should not be abused, whether they are companion
animals or animals used in an industry such as greyhound racing or
indeed meat production. It is the mark of a civilised society that we
look after our animals in an appropriate fashion.
There has been
concern for the welfare of greyhounds throughout their lives, from when
they are bred for racing, through their racing lives and after. The
point made by animal welfare groups that the regulations, while they
are welcome, do not go far enough is well made. The whole perception of
the greyhound racing industry would be improved if a full set of
regulations were put in place. It is a leisure industry, but many
people who would like to attend greyhound racing may be put off by some
of the sights that we have seen on our television screens and some of
the stories that have appeared in newspapers. Given the number of
greyhounds that have to be bred to produce the number needed for
racing, what happens to the puppies and young greyhounds that, for
whatever reason, are not suitable for racing or do not have the
physical ability to compete at the highest level?
We applaud
the fact that a veterinary surgeon is needed to attend each race
meeting and to keep records. Many improvements in welfare in horse
racing have arisen because records were kept about the design of a
course or of jumps that caused problems for animal welfare. Those
problems have since been eliminated, and the welfare of the horse
improved. I am sure that the same argument applies to greyhound racing.
Anything that can reduce the number of injuries to these highly trained
and powerful animals, which are more liable to injury through competing
at a high level, is
welcome.
I
see that DEFRA has looked at five approaches to such matters, and has
decided on the licensing alternative. That is the right way forward,
but at the same time we must be mindful that it is not so burdensome
that it eliminates the activity altogether. I am not a great expert in
greyhound racing, but as I understand it, a number of courses have
closed in recent years. Whatever the cause of that, whether it is
property redevelopment or something else, the sport is not expanding
but declining. We must ensure that legitimate activities have proper
regulation, but without the burden.
The
regulation is for England. I am not aware of any greyhound courses in
the devolved nations, but if there were, or if there was a proposal to
set up such courses there, I presume that it would be a responsibility
for the devolved Parliament or Assemblies to regulate in a similar
manner. However, I know that there are greyhound owners and trainers
who live in the devolved nations, and I wonder how the regulations will
apply to
them.
We
welcome the regulations, but we wish that they were extended across the
whole life of greyhounds. That would benefit not only greyhound welfare
but the industry, enhancing its perception in the publics
view.
10.48
am
Rob
Marris (Wolverhampton, South-West) (Lab): It is a pleasure
to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr.
Chope. I pay tribute to the work of the all-party group, particularly
of my former parliamentary neighbour, now Baron Bilston, former MP for
Wolverhampton, South-East, which is adjacent to my constituency in
Wolverhampton. In that city, we have the Monmore Green greyhound track,
one of the 26 Greyhound Board of Great Britain tracks, which
has made great strides in recent years, for example, by introducing
air-conditioned kennels.
The first
point that I want to make concerns the cost to local authorities. My
understanding is that should the Greyhound Board of Great Britain be
successful in achieving UKAS accreditation regarding the enforcement of
welfare standards, the 26 GBGB tracks would be exempted from having to
obtain a licence. However, if for some reason, that accreditation does
not go ahead, there will be some burden on local authorities on
licensing. Will there be any financial support from the
Ministers Department for the burden that would fall on local
authorities, such as my own, Wolverhampton city council? Also, what is
the estimate of the financial burden for licensing on a local
authority? Due to my lack of diligence, I was not able to find it
easily in the regulatory impact
assessment.
My second
point concerns animal welfare issues, which have already been raised. I
understand that the Government believe that there is sufficient
protection in animal welfare regulation, but some of us are not so
sure. I would like the Ministers assurance that the matter will
be kept under review, and that if there is insufficient protection for
greyhounds in practice his Department will return to it.
Thirdly, I
understand that the kennelling requirement will not come into force for
another three years, on 6 April 2013. At that point, only 20
per cent. of dogs will need to be kennelled. There may be good reasons
for that, but on the surface, that appears to be an insufficient animal
welfare standard, which, moreover, will not take place for another
three years. I realise that there needs to be a period of transition on
such matters, but I would like some reassurance that the issue will be
kept under control. Perhaps the Minister can also give a brief
explanation as to why the requirement is only 20 per
cent.
10.51
am
Angela
Watkinson (Upminster) (Con): As an officer of the
all-party group on retired greyhounds, I am pleased to see that the
Retired Greyhound Trust supports the regulations. As we know, the
racing life of greyhounds is a relatively short part of their life
span, and they have many years to give when they retire. They make
wonderful companion animalsthey do not need a lot of exercise,
and sleep quite a lot. In fact, I plan to have three when I
retire.
The
briefing from the Greyhound Board of Great Britain states that 80 per
cent. of greyhounds retiring from racing are rehomed. Will the Minister
say a little bit more about the other 20 per cent.? Are they not
rehomed because they do not have the suitable temperament to be a pet?
Are they euthanased? Is it because of injuries? What could be done to
reduce that 20 per cent. so that as many as possible find loving homes
in which to live out the rest of their
lives?