Joint Committee on the Draft Gambling Bill First Report


Further memorandum from the League Against Cruel Sports (DGB 153)

  We are grateful to the chairman and members of the committee for the opportunity to meet informally on 25 February, and we are pleased to make this supplementary submission to expand on some of the areas discussed.

  Our area of interest is the welfare of raced animals, particularly greyhounds, where current arrangements are less satisfactory than is the case with horse racing. There are a number of areas where the interests of greyhound welfare and the desire to secure the integrity of the betting product coincide. The suggestions we make below would help to ensure that gamblers can be better assured that greyhounds will race according to form, and that integrity is not undermined by a failure to detect or disclose relevant information about the health and fitness of the racing dog.

MICROCHIPPING OF DOGS

    —  It is fundamental to integrity that the identity of the racing greyhound should be clear. There is significant anecdotal information that, in some tracks in the independent sector, the names of dogs being bet on can change from race to race or from track to track.

    —  Currently, dogs are identified via a tattoo. Microchip technology has developed to a level that enables reliable, secure and verifiable identification of animals. This would overcome the two disadvantages of tattooing: namely that tattoos can become indistinct, and that ears can be cut off after retirement, making it impossible to trace an abandoned dog. Therefore, there should be a requirement for all racing dogs to be microchipped—including those racing at independent tracks.

    —  A related point is that the microchipping of all dogs would mean that their information could be kept on a computer database, and be readily available whenever the dog was scanned. Currently, there is a database of dogs racing on NGRC tracks only.

    —  A database, if it included a medical history, could assist the vet at the track in examining the dog for health. Track vets have only a very small period of time to examine any given dog, and knowledge of its previous history could help the vet to spot more minor injuries. This would help to ensure betting integrity as, if a dog is not on best form, there is scope for cheating.

    —  Microchipping of dogs and cats is widespread, particularly where the animals are insured and a verifiable form of identification is needed. Because of this most vets, dog handlers and animal care centers are already equipped with microchip readers and most have access to identity databases. In the event of a microchipped greyhound being found abandoned, it would be much easier to trace the original owner if the dog were microchipped and the database readily accessible.

ON - AND OFF-TRACK VETERINARY CARE

    —  Aside from the obvious welfare benefit of having vets at race meetings, vets at NGRC tracks are able to spot issues that would affect the integrity of the race, such as heavily doped dogs or bitches in season. Vets are not generally present at races in the independent sector, and a change in this position would be a substantial improvement in the welfare of racing greyhounds.

    —  We endorse the view of the Society of Greyhound Vets that vets should be employed independently of the track's racing management and given adequate training.

    —  That said, a vet at a track will have only a few seconds to examine each greyhound. It is no criticism of them to say that significant but minor injuries may well not be detected. There is a commercial and competitive pressure on trainers to provide dogs for races. This can and does lead to dogs being presented for races that may be below par, albeit fit enough to pass the pre race inspection at the track. In the hands of the unscrupulous the information on race fitness, known to the owner or kennel staff, but not detected at the track, could seriously undermine the integrity of the betting product as well as significantly increasing the risk of aggravating the injuries, strains and general wear and tear on the racing dog. We therefore believe that vets should be required to certify dogs as race fit before they race, before they leave the trainers' kennels on race days.

    —  Good quality veterinary facilities at tracks could also be helpful in this.

    —  These points have obvious financial implications. Neither independent tracks nor commercial greyhound trainers make a lot of money from the industry. We do not believe that a legislative route that put a major financial burden on those least able to pay would be as desirable as securing broader funding. An independent veterinary service specializing in determining the racing fitness of greyhounds, ensuring better animal welfare and the integrity of the betting product, could be funded from a levy on the betting turnover, thereby ensuring that all racing dogs received adequate care and rigorous inspection by an independent vet.

LICENSING OF BOOKMAKERS AS "FIT AND PROPER PERSONS"

    —  The bill currently provides for the Gambling Commission, in awarding licences, to consider the suitability of the applicant. We believe that an appropriate regard for the welfare of racing animals should be an element of this consideration. This should include providing appropriate facilities at tracks and kennels and making an appropriate contribution to welfare issues such as veterinary costs and retirement provision through payment of the levy. This would tie in with the Bill's commitment to safeguard the vulnerable—we believe that both vulnerable people and vulnerable animals should be safeguarded in law.

February 2004


 
previous page contents next page

House of Lords home page Parliament home page House of Commons home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 25 March 2004