Welfare of Racing Greyhounds (Hansard, 16 February 2000)

§ Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Canning Town)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the welfare of racing greyhounds at all tracks in the United Kingdom; and for connected purposes. I am grateful for this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House a matter in which I have taken a special interest in the past couple of years.

In 1998, two of my constituents—Mrs. Pudney and Miss Pudney, who regularly write on animal welfare matters—brought to my attention some of the problems associated with the greyhound industry, which is otherwise known as a sport. First, they told me that a great many very young greyhound puppies are destroyed each year when they fail to make the grade, and that many others are discarded after they have peaked at an early age. Secondly, they highlighted the plight suffered by other greyhounds when their racing days in the UK are over. I should like to thank my constituents for raising those matters with me, and I shall return to them in a moment.

In addition, I want to raise the matter of the health and welfare of dogs at UK tracks. This is a problem at both licensed and unlicensed tracks, but it is the unlicensed tracks that give the greater cause for concern.

I must declare an interest in this matter. In the past seven years, my family and I have taken in two dogs from Battersea dogs home. Scruffy has now gone to the great kennel in the sky, but Kajan was Westminster dog of the year this year. Both knew a thing or two about greyhounds: although neither belong to that breed, there were many greyhounds with them at Battersea—indeed, far too many.

Individuals and groups concerned with greyhound welfare have told me about the number of greyhound puppies that are bred each year. The figures suggest that 75 to 85 per cent. of greyhounds racing in the UK are bred in Ireland, which also supplies the US, Spain, the United Arab Emirates and other countries. In 1998, my noble Friend Lord Williams of Mostyn, the Minister who was responsible for this area of animal welfare, informed me in correspondence that the destruction of healthy greyhound puppies is, of course, to be regretted. That may be Government understatement, but unfortunately that was as much as my noble Friend was able to say. Some estimates suggest that several thousand dogs are routinely destroyed each year. That gives some idea of how early in the life of a greyhound the problems begin to arise.

So what is life at the tracks like for the dogs? I am sure that many people innocently assume that, because greyhounds run very fast, it is no hardship for them to do so, and that, given that they do not have to jump high fences and that they have no one on their backs, they probably do not have a bad life, all told. I am afraid that closer inspection shows that that is not the whole story.

In the greyhound industry, 33 tracks are registered by the National Greyhound Racing Club, greyhound racing's 951 judicial body, which registers dogs on their tracks and controls the racing rule book. However, 35 tracks are outside NGRC control, and there is no identifiable representative body for the independent tracks—or flapping tracks, as they are known.

Under NGRC rules, all registered tracks must have a veterinary surgeon in attendance when greyhounds are racing, but that rule does not apply at independent tracks. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals—which I believe has the respect of all hon. Members—has stated that it is important that animals hurt or injured during racing receive swift and adequate veterinary attention to minimise their suffering". The RSPCA also set out a number of items on a check list. First, common standards of track design should be improved to ensure that dangerous bends do not cause unnecessary injury to dogs. I believe that those improvements should also cover track surfaces. Secondly, the organisation states that track kennels must be inspected and licensed by local authorities. No legislation exists to allow local authorities to control the welfare of racing greyhounds, and their only responsibility is in respect of gaming and betting. The RSPCA also states that the frequency of races should be restricted.

Thirdly, the RSPCA has stipulated that a vet must be in attendance at all races, and that that should be funded centrally by the racing organisations, rather than by the track owner, as is currently the case at NGRC races. Fourthly, and most importantly, the RSPCA states that tracks without veterinary provision should not be allowed to operate.

I believe that that check list from the RSPCA is the very least that the sport or industry should be made to adhere to, and I assume that the NGRC would agree. There is a good case for introducing legislation to regulate the whole industry, and the time has come for a review. I feel that the House can do something more positive to protect greyhounds during their racing lives.

The dogs have a number of champions besides my constituents. They include Annette Crosbie of Greyhounds UK, the National Canine Defence League and its members, and a retired vet by the name of Paddy Sweeney, who has done much to highlight the situation in respect of racing conditions. I should like to record my thanks to Mr. Sweeney in particular for his work in this area.

Mr. Sweeney pointed out that NGRC rules give vets no complete power or authority at the licensed tracks. Vets can advise promoters or managers, but the rules do not state that that advice must be accepted. So where profitability is threatened, vets can be given short shrift if they endeavour to act in the best interests of the racing dog.

Paddy outlined an example in which atrocious conditions one winter's night at a track led trainers to plead with the vet to intercede for them. The vet telephoned the manager of the track to ask that someone go along to inspect it. There was no immediate response, but I am informed that the next day the vet received a letter terminating his contract. As matters stand, it sometimes appears that even when vets are present, it is more to reassure the public than because they are on active duty. I sincerely hope that that is not the case. 952 I want to address what happens to the dogs when their racing days in this country are over. We all know the saying, "A dog is for life, not just for Christmas." For our purposes, we need to bear it in mind that a greyhound is for life, not just for the duration of its racing and money-making years. Unsurprisingly, the various groups with a concern or interest in the matter disagree as to the nature of the problem and its relative severity. However, no one could contend that no problem exists.

The Retired Greyhound Trust, established to ensure the welfare of post-racing dogs, was deemed by the Select Committee on Home Affairs to be grossly underfunded. It can find homes for only about 1,500 greyhounds out of the total of 10,000-odd which retire each year. Some are put down; others are exported from the United Kingdom. Those dogs have usually ended their racing life in this country. Whatever the fate of exported greyhounds, I take this opportunity to advocate support, in the Bill, for greatly increased resources for retired greyhounds.

I am pleased to report that in 1991 a Home Affairs Committee report recommended: track owners and both on and off-course bookmakers should be required to donate a part of their profits to the Retired Greyhound Trust. The NGRC/BGRB should take the lead in this. New legislation could address that matter. However, I am aware that the BGRB is actively seeking agreement to increase the funding of the trust to £1 million a year. The sooner that that can be done, the better.

Furthermore, £2 billion a year is bet on greyhound racing. A levy on betting, similar to that which applies to horse racing, would provide a fund for improving tracks, veterinary support and greyhound welfare. The Government have yet to give their endorsement, regarding this as a commercial activity. However, it might be time to rethink that perspective.

I conclude by reminding hon. Members that the dog has been called man's best friend. That may not be politically correct, and my cat-loving assistant, Debbie, would disagree. However, greyhounds make great pets, especially for pensioners. Greyhounds are renowned for their mild and friendly nature and, as they are very lean, they do not take a lot of feeding. That makes them economic as well as affectionate.

The Bill is very timely. We will be able not only to say that a dog is for life, not just for Christmas, but that a greyhound is for life, not just for its money-making sporting ability.

Dogs give service as workers, pets and friends, but greyhounds serve also as entertainers for us. It is time we recognised their role by taking this matter forward in the House.