Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1020
- 1039)
TUESDAY 27 JANUARY 2004
LORD LIPSEY,
MR CLARKE
OSBORNE AND
MR RICHARD
HAYLER
Q1020 Lord Faulkner of Worcester: What
happens if the person who does that then tells Lord Mancroft that
he has done it and Lord Mancroft then lays against that dog?
Lord Lipsey: I would call that
conspiracy to cheat.
Q1021 Chairman: I agree with the
witness!
Lord Lipsey: Not that I could
imagine any such thing happening!
Q1022 Mr Page: Let us suppose somebody
did not do anything to the dog but saw that when it woke up in
the morning it was not looking very well and possibly could not
keep its breakfast down, and used that information to lay against
the dog. Is that cheating?
Lord Lipsey: I think it is cheating.
Of course, it becomes more difficult to police as we get to that
end of it.
Q1023 Lord Faulkner of Worcester: It
is probably not illegal.
Lord Lipsey: It is probably not
illegal, as you rightly say. If I can make a general point about
integrity in this, and thinking about the witnesses you had last
week, one of the great advantages, from an integrity point of
view, of dogs is that you do not have men sitting on their backs.
You cannot bribe a dog not to run, though you can stop it in other
ways.
Q1024 Chairman: I do not know the
answer to this. Are you saying that non-triers rule in greyhounds?
Mr Osborne: Not as written for
horse racing but there are certainly procedures which would look
at, if you like, non-triers because, effectively, there must be
a reason and procedures find out that reason.
Lord Lipsey: Again, it is easier
with dogs because they run very much to time. If you see that
a dog has had a clear run and it has taken it half-a-second longer
to get round the 460 yards than it did the week before, that in
itself is extremely strong grounds for suspicion. The other thing
is that dope testing is very strong. The first of these figures
is slightly off the top of my head, but at one stage roughly 3
per cent were testing positive for dope. We are now down to a
fraction of 1 per cent testing positive, and in many cases—in
most cases—this is not a dog that has been doped. There
are two main sources: season suppressants (which we will not go
into in any great detail), which can give positive results, and
unsourced meat. Unsourced meat, which is a problem with getting
false positives, is very much a problem of the lack of prosperity
in some parts of the industry.
Q1025 Lord Faulkner of Worcester: The
very important point you made earlier, if I can make it again,
is that the growth of the betting exchange and the opportunity
to bet on something to lose a race—whether we are talking
about a horse race or greyhound—does increase the risk to
the integrity of that sport.
Lord Lipsey: I think so, yes.
I would not say it is a qualitative difference because you could
always make money if you could stop an odds-on favourite in a
race, as we know from some of the cases, but it is a quantitative
difference, and the scale of the opportunity for bad practice
is hugely increased.
Q1026 Jeff Ennis: Just a supplementary
question along the same lines as Lord Faulkner, my Lord Chairman,
because of the human element you have far more what you call stewards'
inquiries into horse racing because you eliminate the human element
from the dog racing. Obviously we will not have the same amount
of inquiries. What sort of level of inquiries do we have, given
that you are removing that human factor, in comparison with a
sport like horse racing?
Mr Hayler: Can I answer by saying
that when a greyhound arrives at an NGRC licensed race course
it is inspected by a qualified vet and every greyhound is also
weighed to see if there has been any great weight change since
it last ran, so the potential for a dog to be slightly lame or
anything like that is very limited; it would not get past the
vet. So the opportunities to have some inside knowledge are very
much restricted. What we said a few moments ago is that the temptation
when you are able to profit from a greyhound getting beaten may
lead to people seeking new ways in which they might be able to
beat the system. At the moment it is very solid.
Q1028 Jeff Ennis: Given that high
level of integrity, which I accept and I think is an exceptionally
good thing, what sort of level of inquiry do we have these days
in dog racing?
Mr Osborne: In terms of the comparative
numbers with horse racing, I would not be able to furnish you
with that data.
Lord Lipsey: Could we write to
you, please? I would like to consult with the NGRC about this.
As you know, we are not the authority responsible for integrity,
they are. We will write to you to give you an indication.
Chairman: That would be very helpful,
given the questions that we have asked. Can we move briefly to
the social implications involved?
Q1029 Lord Wade of Chorlton: Do your
members currently contribute to the Gambling Industry Charitable
Trust?
Mr Osborne: Yes, some of our members
do. The BGRB, as yet, had made no recommendations in this respect,
so those members are doing so, effectively, just from the information
provided to them. It is the BGRB's intention, when the position
is clear as to the collection mechanism for the Trust and how
that is to be shaped across the whole of the gambling industry,
to formulate a recommendation to our members.
Q1030 Lord Wade of Chorlton: Following
on from that, do you think that contributions to the Trust should
be tapered according to the gambling activities companies offer?
Mr Osborne: Yes, I think so. That
would be a fair way of considering it across the entire gambling
industry.
Q1031 Lord Wade of Chorlton: Do you
know, in fact, what the industry is likely to contribute to the
scheme you mentioned?
Mr Osborne: We have not computed
that, I am afraid.
Q1032 Mr Page: This morning we were
given evidence by another trade association that they, in fact,
collect the money from their members and send it over to the Gambling
Trust. Would you consider that as an operation you would want
to undertake, or would you rather leave it to the individual members?
Mr Osborne: I would say it would
be a matter for the Board. Certainly the BGRB would not want to
shirk from such a responsibility if it could see itself as being
able to provide the right sort of mechanism for doing that. I
do not think they would demur from that responsibility.
Q1033 Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville:
Are there any negative social side effects associated with
greyhound racing?
Lord Lipsey: Yes, there are because
some people bet more than they should. Quite a lot of people spend
more money than they should to buy the dogs in the first place.
What really strike me are the positive side effects of dog racing.
I have been going dog racing for 28 years; I have never seen a
fight, I have never seen anybody lying down drunk, I have practically
never seen a policeman intervening, and I see a lot of people
having a good time, having a decent meal together and chatting
together. I must say, as these more and more soulless forms of
gambling come along—you sit in your living room having solo
gambling intercourse over the Internet, or whatever—and
I compare that with the social activity of going to a greyhound
race for a good night out, I call that a positive side effect.
In America, I think, Bob Putnam called it "social capital";
it is a thing that builds social capital whereas some gambling
activities destroy social capital, which is yet another reason
for being passionately in favour of turning this into a more flourishing
sport.
Q1034 Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville:
That was a very firm and enthusiastic enforcement. However,
I have to take you back to the fact that I originally asked a
question about the negative side effects—
Lord Lipsey: I am a Parliamentarian!
Chairman: That has been very obvious
since a quarter-past two!
Q1035 Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville:
I am never sure that I am. You can have positive side effects
while having negative side effects as well. Do you want to say
anything about problem gambling in the context of greyhound racing?
Lord Lipsey: No, apart from saying
that we will do what we can through the Gambling Industry Charitable
Trust, and the more profitable the industry is the more it will
be able to do in that kind of way. Beyond saying that, there is
a whole operation to be done in terms of training staff to watch
out for it and all the things that GamCare has been developing
and the Charitable Trust has been developing. We are all learning
as we go on this and we do not know a tremendous amount about
problem gambling. All I can say is yes, as I think I initially
said, there are negative social side effects, and give you an
absolute assurance that greyhound racing is committed to keeping
those negative side effects to an absolute minimum by whatever
means are necessary.
Q1036 Viscount Falkland: Greyhound
tracks have become more popular venues for families, which you
rightly encourage. How can you ensure that children are prevented
from placing bets? Do you agree that your tracks should, in line
with other gambling venues, operate under a formal code of social
responsibility? May I just tack on, if you would not mind commenting:
how much involvement by the Commission, when it is in full flow,
would you expect or is appropriate?
Mr Osborne: In terms of the question
of families being admitted to racecourses and, therefore, the
proximity of children to betting, some of the key issues to think
about are that admission to racecourses is controlled, so it is
not open. It is always controlled. Children who are admitted to
racecourses are admitted, effectively, in the family environment;
they are admitted only with adults of parenting age. So that position
limits the ability for children to be, effectively, unattended
and to be in close proximity to a gambling exercise. On the race
course itself and the activities, racecourses have a high ratio
of staff to customers, so there are no situations, within a racecourse
environment, where children could effectively go off and use a
slot machine which was unattended or could effectively place a
bet without having to transact that with a member of staff. At
the point of control, I think racecourses are in pretty good shape.
As to your question on whether or not we feel that we would want
to interact with the Commission, I think the answer to that is
yes. To the extent that the Commission looks across the whole
of the gambling network and is looking at this particular position
of children gambling, quite obviously they will want to look at
racecourses, so we would see the potential interaction there as
positive.
Q1037 Chairman: Just a couple of
questions on welfare. Should codes of practice dealing with animal
welfare be attached to licences given to tracks where greyhounds
are bet on?
Lord Lipsey: I am not sure, my
Lord Chairman, whether we operate primarily for this Bill or for
the planned Animal Welfare Bill, on which the Government is committed
to another round of consultations, starting in the spring. So
to that extent, although I could talk about welfare all night—since
it is where I came into a lot of this greyhound stuff—I
am not sure how totally relevant it is. I think the NGRC's rules
give considerable support on welfare issues. For example, an owner
now is supposed to tell the NGRC what it does with its dog when
the dog is no longer racing and to be struck off if they do not.
You would have to ask them whether it always works quite that
way in practice, but that does give a power for that very important
element of welfare—what happens to a dog when it stops racing.
So far as tracks are concerned, I can see advantages to such a
code. In particular, if I may say this, since I first raised this
in a debate in the House of Lords in 2001, welfare has come on
leaps and bounds. We are both in a different financial atmosphere
on it and we are in a completely different level of commitment
to it. In summer 2001, following a dreadful incident at Catford,
where a dog died of heat exhaustion, the speed at which kennels
were upgraded and the problem tackled—the incident should
not have happened in the first place but there was a great willingness
to do this. Not only since I got this job, but even bookmakers,
who some of you may think of as hard-hearted people, have been
coming up to me and saying "We are very happy to provide
more money for welfare". So there has been considerable progress.
The main problem is with the unlicensed tracks, the flapping tracks,
and I do not blame them. They are often a mum and pop operation.
They have not got the money for investment. They may have dodgier
owners, they do not have owners who are subject to NGRC regulation,
and I think that is probably where most of the welfare problems
stem from. There was a recent survey that was strongly reported
in The Times newspaper, done in the Wales, which said something
like, "There are 10,000-odd dogs not being homed after racing
and meeting terrible fates", but the survey under which that
was done was based entirely in Wales and in Wales there is no
NGRC track but there are four unlicensed tracks in the south.
This is very much a problem of the unlicensed tracks. Some of
those will go out of business if we go, and if we had some sort
of statutorily backed code I think it would hasten the process
which means, sad though it is for the people running those tracks,
that if they cannot invest the money to make their greyhounds
safe and well, then they should not be in business.
Q1038 Chairman: Should they have
access to the BGRB fund on veterinary and welfare issues?
Lord Lipsey: Our approach is much
more to try to bring them under the NGRC umbrella rather than
to give handouts where we could not really be sure that we were
getting the results from them that we wanted.
Q1039 Chairman: I appreciate that
these questions go a little bit beyond the scope of the Bill,
but I think you will understand that when a Bill comes before
Parliament for consideration in the normal course of events through
Standing Committee and so on, outside organisations are likely
to pose these questions. Could I ask you finally whether you would
favour a statutory levy to apply to racing greyhound welfare?
Lord Lipsey: I will divide that
question if I may into two parts. The first is on whether we need
more money for welfare, and, secondly, on the statutory levy in
general. So far as more money for welfare is concerned, money
going to the Retired Greyhound Trust has gone up to £240,000
in 2000. Bookmakers gave another large ring-fenced slice in 2002,
so we are now up from £240,000 to £850,000 going into
the Retired Greyhound Trust. To take another figure, there was
a 121 per cent [increase] in spending from the fund on welfare
last year alone. I am somebody who is on the trust and, to be
frank, if there was a lot more money thrown at it I think there
would be a lot more money wasted. If I could give another example,
the Chair of the Retired Greyhound Trust is Duncan Green from
Battersea who, as everybody round this table knows, is one of
the most devoted dog welfare people in the country. He said, "If
you get more money what people will want to do is build kennels
and it costs £25,000 to build a kennel for one dog these
days. You do not want to be doing that. You want to be spending
the money encouraging people to have them in their own homes,
which is what dogs like, and which is much more cost effective".
You cannot build that up in a day, is all I am saying. I hope
the money is not going to be the constraint on what we can do
on the welfare front in the near future. However, can I just turn
briefly to the question of the statutory levy in general because
it does raise an extraordinarily important point. Not all bookmakers
are paying the voluntary levy. The voluntary levy is paid in regard
to 79 per cent of shops, which means that 21 per cent are not
paying. In addition, of those who pay some are not providing us
with audited accounts and I am fairly certain that not many of
them are paying more than their due under the voluntary fund and
many are paying less. This is wholly unjust to those who are paying
and it is wholly unjust to the greyhound industry that you should
have these free riders at the expense of the others, and one of
the ABB witnesses in their evidence was at least as strong on
this as I think I am being here today. I recognise that ever since
the 1991 Home Affairs Committee, on which I think you sat, Chairman,
if I remember rightly—
| 
