Greyhounds

HL Deb 10 July 2001 vol 626 cc1057-78

6.11 p.m.

Lord Lipsey

My Lords, we are not quite as numerous in the Chamber tonight as perhaps we would be if we were debating the matter of foxhounds; we are debating only greyhounds. However, the quality more than makes up for the quantity.

My choice of subject for debate has caused a certain amount of jocularity in some quarters. It appears that some noble Lords believe that it is not quite appropriate for a Peer of the realm to talk about greyhounds. However, that may be because I am associated more often with genuinely crowd-pleasing subjects such as electoral reform and the long-term care of the elderly. Perhaps I may take a moment to defend my choice of subject.

I concede readily that there are more important subjects to discuss than the welfare of greyhounds: AIDS in Africa, civil war in Macedonia and world poverty come to mind. Of course those matters are more important and it is right that we debate them. I have even heard noble Lords, in their passion, say that our voices reach to the four corners of the earth. I have my doubts. The subject before us tonight is less important globally, but it is one that noble Lords have the power to influence—and to do so greatly for the better. That influence may have the effect of greatly improving the lives of thousands of dogs of this magnificent breed.

I shall begin by recounting a tale of two dogs, both of which were mine. The first racing dog I ever owned was one called Park Laddie. In his day he was a good dog. He was two spots off the track record at Wimbledon and won his Pall Mall heat at Harringay; he was even quoted in the Derby betting. Unfortunately, however, Park Laddie broke a hock and had to retire. At that point the head kennel lad approached us and said that this meant that Park Laddie's career was at an end. He said, "We'll look after him for you". At the time we did not have a large house and I chose to take the kennel lad's word for it; he seemed a nice enough man. I hope that his word was true. I hope that Park Laddie, who was a lovely dog, was rehomed or that if, for some reason he was not able to be rehomed, he was painlessly put down. I hope so, but to my eternal shame, I do not know that. Furthermore, I believe that thousands of greyhound owners are in the same position.

The second dog that I wish to introduce is our current retired greyhound, Zak. To our great pride, Zak is the current Westminster Dog of the Year. In his racing days, Zak was also a good dog who won minor open races. But at the age of five he was disqualified from a race. Then there is a six-month gap in his history. He was found wandering the streets, in a very poor condition, by workers from the Battersea Dogs Home, bless them. Soon after that, he adopted us. At this point I should tell the House that greyhounds make the most wonderful and trouble-free pets. They do not even need to be walked all that far.

Perhaps some 10,000 greyhounds are retired from racing each year. Of those, a number under 2,000 are rehomed through the industry's Retired Greyhound Trust, although I have been told that presently there is a six-month wait before a dog can be taken by the trust. Some 1,500 dogs are rehomed through voluntary efforts. I can see sitting below Bar some of the very fine men and women who dedicate their lives to this task. Broadly speaking, that then leaves 6,500 dogs which are unaccounted for. Some may be lucky, but some are unlucky. They may be shipped to Spain, where often they are kept racing until they can no longer put one foot in front of the other. Others are abandoned, as was the case with Zak. Some are murdered, their ears cut off so that they cannot be identified and their owners brought to book.

Most greyhound owners and trainers are caring people. They would not want their animals to suffer. However, a minority are not, and I strongly believe that if the leadership of this industry would take its responsibilities seriously in regard to retired greyhounds, that minority problem could be dealt with relatively easily.

It gives me no pleasure to say that I am not impressed with the industry's performance in this regard. Perhaps I may illustrate that statement from my own experience. Before launching this campaign I called Mr Geoffrey Thomas, a pleasant and able man who runs the British Greyhound Racing Board, to request a meeting to discuss the matter. I telephoned four times, but I received no reply. I then wrote to him. Eventually I received a letter promising a call as soon as the Budget was out of the way. I still await that telephone call.

Many noble Lords have been in this House for longer than I. In my short experience, every responsible industry—every firm and every pressure group—is only too eager to meet us and to put their case. Sometimes the trouble lies in trying to keep them away. That is not the case with greyhound racing, which appears to regard itself as a law unto itself.

This is not an isolated example. Shortly before the general election, the then Minister responsible for animal welfare, Mr Mike O'Brien, wrote to the main industry players in polite terms asking what they planned to do about the welfare of retired greyhounds. I have seen the reply the Minister received from Mr Frank Melville of the NGRA. I shall not detain the House by reading extracts from his long letter, but civil servants who saw that letter can recall few occasions when a letter from a responsible Minister had evinced in reply such a piece of whining bombast.

Sadly, this is an industry divided between its various ruling bodies and between registered and unregistered "flapping" tracks. That makes the task all the more difficult. It is unfortunate that it is also led by an unaccountable and self-regarding oligarchy which simply does not understand the necessity to take on board and react to considered criticism from outside. I think that it speaks for itself that the industry's contribution to rehousing retired greyhounds totals only £250,000 a year.

What should the industry do? The National Canine Defence League undertakes sterling work in this field. It has set out a four-point plan: first, that the industry conducts research to find out the scale of the problem; secondly, that sufficient funds are made available to the Retired Greyhound Trust to enable it to cope with the numbers; thirdly, that there should be high profile prosecutions of owners or trainers who abandon their dogs—name and shame; and fourthly, that there should be better governance of the sport—one overarching body to take responsibility.

I think that the priority here is money. Greyhound owners, with some Croesus-like exceptions, are not rich; nor are most trainers, who these days must struggle to make a living. In 1991 the Home Affairs Select Committee pointed out that the most obvious source of finance is the bookmakers. Here I speak as a bookmaker because I am a member of the board of the Tote. Bookmakers take well over £1 billion on dogs each year. Greyhound racing is an essential component of the betting shop product—it kept the industry going during the foot and mouth outbreak when there was no horse racing. There is even 24-hour dog racing on TV now, believe it or not, courtesy of barkingmad.com. I am ashamed to say that I watched several hours of it over the weekend. It is an experience. Money is required. I say no more today other than that I believe that progressive forces in bookmaking are prepared to put up the necessary money to deal with the problem.

I turn now to the terms of the Unstarred Question and to ask the Government about their plans. I know all about the pressures of the legislative programme. My noble friend the Minister will be glad to hear that I am not asking for a commitment to legislation on this matter from him today. He will be even gladder to know that I am not even asking him for more money from the taxpayer today. I should much prefer that the industry puts its own house in order without legislative intervention. But I do ask the Minister to make it clear to the industry that it is on probation. If it does not do what is necessary to tackle these scandals, it will be for the Government to ask Parliament to act.

We want a healthy greyhound racing industry of which we can be proud. "Behind our backs", say those of us who campaign on this subject, "the industry whispers that we have a secret agenda: the abolition of dog racing". In my case, and in the case of most of the people that I know, it is the reverse. We want something done to save this sport, not to destroy it. Yes, there are people who would ban greyhound racing. I have a paper in my folder from a group called Greyhound Action. It states: Greyhound racing inevitably leads to massive killing and suffering. The only solution is abolition". Lest your Lordships think that that is a fantasy, we should remember how quickly hunting went from something that was totally accepted everywhere to the edge of abolition; we should think of Huntingdon Life Sciences. Those who are complacent should think again.

We want greyhound racing to thrive. But it cannot do so while the abuse continues and the authorities in their complacency connive at it. I ask the Government and the House today to demonstrate to greyhound racing that Britain, a civilised society and a society of animal lovers, will not continue to tolerate the continued abuse of these magnificent creatures.

6.22 p.m.

Lord Freeman

My Lords, I declare an interest. I am a member of the Kennel Club, as are a number of other Members of the House.

I profess not to be a devotee of greyhound racing but I strongly support the right of millions to enjoy it. I wish the industry well. But I think it is perfectly possible to support an industry such as greyhound racing and the enjoyment it brings to many and also to be acutely concerned about the welfare of the animals. We are a civilised nation. I believe that in many ways the touchstone of civilisation can be expressed by our attitudes towards not only our fellow human beings but animals.

An appropriate parallel can be drawn with horse racing. Not for one moment would we, as legislators, permit a situation where perhaps half the number of retiring greyhounds and half the number of retiring racehorses would be put down or abandoned. It is unthinkable. We value our horse racing industry. Although its structure is different, the way in which it breeds is different and the life-span of the animals is somewhat different, nevertheless there are no criticisms—few—in this country about the welfare of retired racehorses. The same should apply to greyhounds.

I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, because the debate will help to ventilate, once again the importance of the welfare of retired greyhounds. I am not aware of any of your Lordships having a hidden agenda to abolish the industry. I differ with the noble Lord in regard to legislation—I shall deal with the issue in my concluding remarks—which I am more inclined now to favour than voluntary control. But I am aware of no one in your Lordships' House who is advocating the abolition of the industry because of the problems which lie within it—which are, in my judgment, capable of solution.

It is rather nice for the noble Lord—whom I always associate with erudite political comment in the Economist—suddenly to sprout up like a distinguished retired greyhound himself and to ventilate this issue. I am delighted that he has given us this opportunity.

The noble Lord referred to approximately 10,000 dogs being registered each year, but, of course, no one knows the number of unregistered dogs. It is a voluntary system. Bearing in mind the tremendous number of greyhounds coming in from abroad, particularly from Ireland—and one pays tribute to some of the great racing greyhounds and their progeny which have come from Ireland—I would not be at all surprised if we are talking about 15,000 to 20,000 new dogs each year coming into the industry.

After four years, a dog may be too old for a registered track, and after six years too old to race on an unregistered track. But then, it is to be hoped, it will have 10 years of life left. A 16 year-old greyhound is by no means uncommon. Greyhounds live for about the same length of time as spaniels.

As the noble Lord indicated, part of the problem of the structure of the industry is that many amateurs breed and train greyhounds. It does not cost them much. It does not cost much to register a dog and it certainly does not cost much to train a dog if one is doing it as an individual for entry and enjoyment in racing, particularly unregistered racing. The real money is with the betting industry as opposed to the greyhound owners themselves, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, rightly said.

I find it unacceptable that any number of retired greyhounds have to be put down once their racing days are over. I suspect that I am in a minority among some of those who take an interest in the subject at the Kennel Club. Some may argue that that is the humane way to conclude the life of a sporting greyhound. I do not share that view. I believe strongly that if greyhounds are to be bred and trained for the racetrack, their owners and the industry have a responsibility to provide for a life after racing and not cut it short.

As the noble Lord said, they are marvellous animals. I do not have the same familiarity with them as the noble Lord hut, although greyhounds certainly need space—and they certainly need to be muzzled in certain circumstances when you take them out—they are "couch potatoes", if I can borrow a phrase from one of the excellent briefing papers that I have recently read. Greyhounds are easy going. They like television. I am told that they particularly like watching party political broadcasts, so they must be a breed apart.

I suggest that we need three things. First, we need more education. Those who are buying or breeding greyhounds and entering them into racing should always be reminded of their responsibilities when their dogs' racing careers end. I know that a lot is being done but more should be done. Secondly, some of the international issues to which the noble Lord referred need further reflection. Are European Union grants for diversification of agriculture and farming being inappropriately used in some cases to expand breeding—certainly of greyhounds and I believe of other dogs—without the necessary controls and without the necessary understanding of the obligations of breeders? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, that more resources are needed.

I conclude by looking at the financing and structure of the industry. The noble Lord referred to a six-month waiting list with the Greyhound Trust. I pay tribute to what it has done in placing in happy homes each year approximately 2,000 of the minimum of 10,000 greyhounds which retire. That is a marvellous achievement. But, frankly, the trust receives only a modest proportion of the funds available to the industry—certainly from the voluntary levy, which I believe still runs at 0.4 per cent of bets placed.

We need to do a number of things, and at some further stage this House needs to consider approaching the matter on a statutory basis. I know that such an approach was rejected by the government in which I served about 10 years ago; however, unless we can see an improvement, we should not shirk from approaching the problem via legislation. In that way we could broaden the levy and make it compulsory on bookmakers; the registration fee could be increased, thereby ensuring that a higher proportion of funding comes in to the provision of welfare, good homes and, if necessary, kennels for retired greyhounds. In the industry we should see fewer greyhounds bred, fewer entered for racing and, therefore, fewer to look after satisfactorily in retirement.

6.31 p.m.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester

My Lords, I readily admit that, until I saw that my noble friend Lord Lipsey had been successful in securing this debate, I was not an expert on the plight of retired greyhounds. Indeed, my knowledge of greyhounds was very limited, relating to greyhound betting, being a member of the All-Party Greyhound Racing Group and an occasional visitor to the Wimbledon track.

Fortunately, in preparing for this debate I was put in touch with one of the founders of Greyhounds UK, Annette Crosbie—I hope that she will not mind my naming her and referring to the fact that she is probably best known as a distinguished actress whose thespian skills bring pleasure to millions of television viewers. She is also a key member, with many other members of the acting fraternity, of Greyhounds UK. They have done a marvellous job in drawing public attention to the plight of retired greyhounds.

I have read the evidence prepared by Greyhounds UK for the Gambling Review set up by the Home Office, which is to report shortly. It is memorably entitled: Fat Cats, Dead Dogs. I have read some letters from Ms Crosbie to Wembley PLC, as owner of the Greyhound Racing Association. In addition, I have read some horrific case histories of ill-treatment of greyhounds, illustrated by some distressing photographs, and some cuttings from the Racing Post. From all this information it is evident that there is much wrong with the way in which greyhounds, particularly those whose racing careers have ended, are treated.

Ten years ago, the Home Affairs Committee in another place said in its report: The most pressing concern … was the care of retired greyhounds. The Greyhound Racing Trust … is 'grossly underfunded' and can only find homes for 1,500 greyhounds out of a total of 10,000 retiring each year. With extra revenue the Trust could be in a position to establish sanctuaries for those retired greyhounds which cannot immediately be placed in suitable homes. We believe that track owners and both on- and off-course bookmakers should be required to donate a part of their profits to the Retired Greyhound Trust". In its Gambling Review evidence, Greyhounds UK claimed that since 1991 nothing had changed. It says that the bookmakers and track owners have kept their profits for themselves; that an additional 9,000 greyhounds a year become surplus to racing—there may be as large number coming off tracks which are not properly registered, giving a possible figure of 19,000 or 20,000 a year; and that the industry-controlled Retired Greyhound Trust, set up in 1974, remains grossly under-funded and finds homes for no more greyhounds than it did nine years ago.

The Retired Greyhound Trust has no kennels of its own, but pays for a limited number of greyhounds—at present 120 at any one time. The industry admits that it takes six months to find a dog a home and that only 240 dogs a year may be funded. People have to use their own money to provide homes. Many hundreds of people around the country are doing that with great dedication.

So what happens to the great majority of greyhounds which can no longer race? Some become household pets. Others are rescued by such organisations as the Celia Cross Greyhound Trust. But the trust has long waiting lists and has to turn dogs away through lack of space. With proper funding, the various greyhound charities could become regional centres and take in more dogs. But a very large number come to an unhappy and tragic end.

One of the problems is the absence of information. There are no records on any kind of track about the length of a dog's racing career. When a dog leaves an NGRC track it goes out of the consciousness of the NGRC altogether. There are no records kept of dogs that are destroyed during the schooling period or of the number of dogs destroyed during their racing career. There are no records kept of injuries incurred while on the track; and there are no records kept of the number of greyhounds abandoned by their owners which are picked up by dog wardens and end up in all kinds of rescue kennels, ranging from the excellent National Canine Defence League kennels to council dog pounds where, if they are lucky, they may live for a further seven days. One vet told the World Greyhound Federation conference that he destroyed nine greyhounds every week—450 a year. Many dogs are dumped from moving cars; others are killed and thrown into ditches.

Greyhounds UK provided evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, with photographs, of dogs that suffered abuse. The worst case was one in Scotland: 19 greyhounds were found dead, all but one drowned, in a quarry near Airdrie. All were young and of racing age. It appeared that when the local track at Wishaw had closed down the owners decided that instead of paying vets' fees to have their dogs humanely destroyed, they would get rid of them themselves. First, they cut their ears off to get rid of the tattoos that would identify them and the owners. Some dogs then had bags weighted with bricks tied around their necks. Others had their skulls smashed. The result of one post-mortem indicated that one dog had not been drowned but had been strangled by a wire tied to its neck and then to a railway sleeper. When that hit the bottom of the quarry the wire tightened.

These facts are not disputed by the industry, and its members argue that they do produce funds to find new homes for greyhounds. This comes from the voluntary levy on punters' winnings deducted by the bookmaker and produces over £4 million a year. However, the bookmakers themselves pay nothing. As my noble friend Lord Lipsey said, only a very small amount of levy income goes to the Retired Greyhound Trust, which is under the control of the British Greyhound Racing Board, which is in turn made up of representatives of promoters and bookmakers.

The Home Affairs Committee recommended that there should be greyhound sanctuaries where retired dogs may end their days, funded by the industry, and that track owners and both on-course and off-course bookmakers should donate a part of their profits to the Retired Greyhound Trust. The committee's recommendations have been ignored, and I support my noble friend in his call for action.

There is to be a change in the way in which betting duty is to be collected in future. That could provide the opportunity to put the funding of the greyhound industry on to a more secure footing and for the first time provide adequately for the thousands of dogs which leave the track every year.

At the same time, there should be an independent inquiry into the welfare of greyhounds surplus to racing. There is enough evidence of appalling ill-treatment to justify urgent action to stop these animals from suffering.

6.40 p.m.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen

My Lords, I should begin by declaring in interest in that I am a member of the Labour Animal Welfare Society. I sincerely thank my noble friend Lord Lipsey for tabling this Question. I do so particularly because he has opened my eyes to an aspect of cruelty to animals about which I have to say—to my shame—I was unaware until I began to look into the subject more closely.

Coming from Market Rasen, as noble Lords will observe from my title, I have some knowledge of horseracing and have enjoyed many days visiting such courses. However, I have never been to a greyhound track; nor witnessed racing, which I know gives great pleasure to thousands of people, being the second most popular spectator sport in the country. I have to say that I am not particularly attracted to greyhounds with their lean and hungry looks. Having never been a Twiggy look-alike myself, nor having been able to run very fast, those in the canine breed to which I am more attracted are slower and more rounded, like myself. However, since my daughter drew my attention to a recent television programme in which the horrors of what happens to some greyhounds after their racing days are over were highlighted—either because of injuries received, or their age—I have begun to look upon these gentle and tender creatures in a different light.

I believe that this Question is part of a wider debate about the whole greyhound industry. It would appear that the welfare of the dogs themselves, the safety and design of the tracks, the question of vets' attendance on all racing tracks—which is the case in Ireland but not in this country—are matters that require further consideration. A number of organisations are already putting forward ideas for improvements in the industry, including, as we heard, the Retired Greyhound Trust, the Greyhound Forum, Greyhounds UK, the National Canine Defence League, the League Against Cruel Sports and the RSPA. They are all interested in improving the greyhound industry and in stopping some of the worst practices that it has produced. In particular, as has already been mentioned, the Retired Greyhound Trust, which was established to ensure the welfare of retired greyhounds, is appealing for increased funding so that it can fight for the removal of any cruelty and for an improved status for greyhound racing. Those efforts must be supported.

Greyhounds retire relatively early. This can be due to the fact that they are burnt out or injured, though sometimes they have become victims of drug abuse through injections designed to increase their speed on the track. Life, while racing, is miserable for those greyhounds; but, for some, there are more horrors to come. I shall not repeat the stories that we have already heard in that respect: the dumping of dogs by the wayside, the clubbing to death and, indeed, other deaths too awful to contemplate, have been itemised.

That brings me to the question of responsibility—the responsibility of those in the industry to put their own house, which, at present, is rather rickety in some areas, in order. As I mentioned earlier, many in the industry have been pressing for improvements in animal welfare and in the safety and design of the tracks, as well as the involvement of vets at all race tracks. Both the National Greyhound Racing Club and the British Greyhound Racing Board are on record as wanting to see improvements in those areas. Let us hope that that is true. We must not, of course, assume that all greyhounds suffer such horrors. Indeed, as we have heard, many are family friends. They are pets and loved by all; they are looked after well into retirement and are greatly missed when they die.

The real money in greyhounds relates to the betting that is intrinsic to the whole industry. This can be off-course, through betting shops, telephone betting or betting on-line—or on-course involving bookmakers at the track, who pay the track promoters a fixed fee for a pitch. I understand that most of this money is placed on the Tote, whereby all bets are pooled and then shared by the winners. On average, promoters deduct 25 per cent from the Tote bets at each track. The total turnover in 1988 was estimated to be £79 million, and the industry winnings from the betting public amounted to almost £20 million

Having thought about this, I, too, began to consider the possibility of a betting levy. It seems to me to be the best way forward for improving greyhound racing. I believe that it could work in a similar way to the horseracing levy. If there were to be such a levy, money could be ploughed back into the industry for its betterment and that of the dogs. Surely greyhounds—the animals at the heart of the pleasure and the profit—deserve that consideration. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will say something about the cruelty element involved, about which we heard from all speakers tonight. This, surely, can be tackled at once.

6.45 p.m.

Lord Hardy of Wath

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Gibson who has clearly undertaken a great deal of homework on the subject. Her speech complements the introductory remarks made by my noble friend Lord Lipsey. Like the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, I should declare an interest. I am a member of the Kennel Club and have been involved in the breeding, showing and judging of dogs for decades. However, I had never had—I should say "we" had never had—a racing greyhound. I had heard so many stories about them that, it seemed to me that they would be very different from the deer-hounds and wolfhounds which we had owned until recently. Therefore, when we acquired a racing greyhound, I wondered what it would be like. In fact, he is the most docile, affectionate and gentle dog I have ever owned.

I should point out that he is actually my wife's dog. I bought him for my wife when I retired from the House of Commons in order to persuade her to carry on typing for me, the House of Lords allowances for secretarial work being rather less than those for the other place. Indeed, the difference between the two is even more marked now. So I bought Jet from a trainer whom I had got to know in my constituency. I telephoned him just last night and asked him how many bad tempered dogs had figured among the hundreds of greyhounds that he and his son, the trainer Barry Draper, had cared for over decades. He could recall only one that had had a vicious temperament.

However, many people believe that greyhounds are vicious. Therefore, I began to worry when the race track at Owlerton, Sheffield, brought in a new hare bearing a remarkable resemblance to the Norwich terrier. As Jet was going to join the company of two Norwich terriers when he retired, noble Lords will understand that I was rather worried about what would happen when we let him off the lead. We knew Jet well. Like many owners, we had visited him every weekend, taken him for a walk and given him some pilchards to eat—this was perfectly in order. Of course, trainers have to be very careful on NGRC tracks about additions to the dog's diet in case it enhances performance; but pilchards were all right. We went quite frequently to watch Jet race and rejoiced when he won. Unfortunately, those race meetings often fell on Tuesdays. As I am on "roster nights" in this House on that day, I could not always attend. I should add that my noble friend Lady Farrington just turned round and smiled at me with approval when I made that comment.

Our trainer always knew that Jet was going to join us when he retired from racing. However, when the time came, he advised us to take Jet home a few times beforehand; and this we did. I put a muzzle on the dog, thinking that he might bite the two Norwich terriers. But they quickly asserted their "power", and the pecking order was established from the first moment. Now that Jet has been retired for quite some time, he is still number three in the pecking order. Indeed, if he wants to drink from the terriers' bowl, they carefully consider whether or not they will allow him to do so. There is no vice in the dog.

I live near a lake and am on very friendly terms with its swan and the ducks of long residence, but Jet walks round them. The ducks and the swan take no precautionary measures because they know him quite well. They are well aware that he is not a ravening beast; he is under control. I have not put a muzzle on him since the first day that he arrived. Even though he suffered serious injury caused by some cut glass that had been dumped by an irresponsible litter-dropping person—who should be made to eat it!—and subsequently required a great deal of veterinary attention, I did not have to use the muzzle during the whole of that period. It was a pretty nasty wound.

Like other sight hounds, the greyhound is easily civilised, obedient, biddable and utterly affectionate. I recommend greyhounds as pets. The Government wish to promote health in the community. I suggest that obese people would benefit from owning a greyhound and giving it a lot of exercise. However, there are problems in this area and I am deeply concerned by some of the points that have been made. It is not just greyhounds which are treated badly and are thrown out of vehicles on to motorways, kicked and brutalised. The Kennel Club has sought for a long time to maintain high standards as regards the treatment of dogs. It does not shrink from taking condign action against people falling within its jurisdiction who treat dogs cruelly. I applaud its efforts to maintain high standards. It is for the National Greyhound Racing Club and those involved in the sport we are discussing to introduce regulation and practice to match the standards of the Kennel Club.

If one wishes to show a dog one has not bred, one buys it and must transfer the relevant details so that the Kennel Club knows the name and address of the person who owns the dog. There is no earthly reason why the computer held records of the greyhound industry cannot include the information I have mentioned when the ownership of a dog changes hands. That step could be undertaken at relatively modest cost.

Change must be initiated by those who run the industry, own it and profit by it. Two changes are especially essential. First, it is obvious that the prize money offered in the vast majority of races is relatively small. Trainers are not affluent. Some trainers I know keep substantial numbers of retired dogs. However, they receive relatively small sums in terms of fees or prize money. A trainer who keeps retired greyhounds is often badly out of pocket. However, the bookies are not out of pocket. The prizes offered at greyhound races in Ireland dwarf the prize money on offer at the NGRC tracks in Britain for all but the great classic races. We need to consider the level of prize money that is on offer. An increase in the amount of prize money on offer would enable trainers to keep more retired dogs or keep them until a home could be found for them.

The sport is beginning to prosper. If it is properly and humanely run, the sport can constitute an attractive family activity. Track owners can make large profits and not merely from the gambling that takes place. The restaurant at the Owlerton track in Sheffield is hooked up three months ahead. That makes matters difficult for owners who have only one week's notice that their dog is to race. Much profit is being made but not enough of it is ploughed back into the industry to endeavour to secure high standards of treatment for dogs, to enable trainers to survive economically and to give owners an incentive to provide the number of dogs the sport needs. I refer to the figure of 1,000 imported dogs. My own dog was born in Tipperary.

The industry needs to understand that animal welfare standards are rising. To meet those standards, and public expectations with regard to those standards, the industry must reconsider its priorities to ensure that it can hold up its head in a modern world. I see nothing wrong in the industry's conduct or in its standards of security or as regards veterinary inspections at NGRC tracks. I can only hope that the standards at NGRC tracks are emulated at flapping tracks, although several of those are in danger of closing, if they have not closed in recent years. Standards at the NGRC tracks in terms of security, honest practice and fair competition are high. One hopes to see those standards extended more widely, as many noble Lords have suggested.

I thank my noble friend Lord Lipsey for introducing the Question. I envied him when his dog won the Westminster dog of the year award. My dog was entered in that event a couple of years ago but he had just left racing kennels at that time. The weather was appalling on the day in question. It absolutely poured with rain. A greyhound in training is carefully cosseted and is not used to being exposed to heavy rain. My dog tried to ensure that I was between him and the oncoming rain. I was wetter than him but he looked even more miserable than I. We were present on Millbank on that occasion to demonstrate that racing greyhounds are not savage beasts, but some of those who are cruel to them are.

6.56 p.m.

Viscount Falkland

My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, who introduced the debate tonight needs to defend himself for introducing a subject as important as this one. He follows in an honourable tradition in this House of debates on animal welfare, particularly dogs. Those who recall the contributions of Lord Houghton of Sowerby miss his presence here tonight, even though the debate might have been somewhat prolonged by his contribution. It would be churlish of me not to remember also the contributions of the late Lady Wharton who, until her untimely death, made great contributions in your Lordships' House on animal welfare subjects. Lady Wharton and Lord Houghton of Sowerby would have contributed to the debate had they still been alive.

This morning I telephoned the British Greyhound Racing Board and talked to authoritative people on that board. I can understand the problems that the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, faced. If I knew that the noble Lord was on the warpath, I would not make myself readily available to meet him. However, the people I spoke to did not associate my name with any problems and I was given full replies to my questions although they may have appeared somewhat naïve to them. Many of the subjects we discussed have already been covered in the debate. There is undoubtedly a problem here. The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, mentioned horses. I understood him to say that there was less of a problem with horses than with dogs. I am not so sure about that. Many horses, particularly from the lower levels of racing, disappear when their racing days are over. There is great anxiety about what happens to them after they are exported or if they disappear in this country or are perhaps sold to be made into petfood. That problem has existed for some time.

I agree with those noble Lords who have suggested that we need legislation to govern greyhound racing and the welfare of dogs when their racing days are over. That legislation needs to cover racing on authorised tracks and on "flapping" tracks. It also needs to cover those events which are probably not well known to your Lordships and which I compare to bare knuckle fighting in the boxing world. Events such as illegal and unregistered coursing occur in outlandish places. Heaven knows what goes on. Those events often take place on racing gallops of training establishments in the late evening or early morning. When horses are taken for early morning gallops, they encounter debris left behind by groups of people racing dogs. When they are tackled, those people are extremely vicious and aggressive.

I should like to see legislation introduced for the welfare of animals involved in competitive sports. Betting is an inevitable part of these issues. The best time for us to address this problem will be when the gambling review body produces its report. The noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, spoke of a betting levy. The trend at present is away from betting levies. The Home Office believes that racing industries should run their own show. The Home Office has distanced itself from gambling by passing the subject over to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I am somewhat relieved because I shall not be treading on the toes of my colleagues in the Home Office when we discuss these issues.

However, public interest matters have to be addressed. The Government cannot absolve themselves from the responsibilities of gambling in relation to events involving animals. Those discussions will arise later. I had the great pleasure of working with the late Lord Houghton of Sowerby on the dangerous dogs legislation. Unhappily, he died before seeing the success of his work on the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill—legislation which I had the privilege of introducing in this House. I have always favoured a dog registration scheme. During the former government's tenure of office, we could get no movement from them on any subject unless we gave an undertaking that we would not hammer on about a dog registration scheme. Horror stories have been described graphically by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and others. We know that such things exist not only within greyhound racing but also in all areas of dog ownership. We must know the number of dogs in this country and have greater control over their ownership. A principle of dog ownership in this country is that someone is responsible for each animal.

The National Greyhound Racing Club has detailed, comprehensive documentation and computerisation about dogs in order to combat fraud. I am not sure whether that applies with regard to the "flapping" tracks. The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, mentioned the use of tattooing rather than a chip. I understand that the technology is not yet advanced enough to place a chip in a racing dog with the certainty that it will not shift in the dog's body. A chip is also tampered with easily by persons wishing to commit fraud.

We have heard horrifying stories about ears with tattoos being removed. Although rare, that does occur. It is one of the reasons that we are debating the matter. The National Canine Defence League produced an excellent brief. The secretary of the National Canine Defence League supported and informed us throughout the dangerous dogs legislation. Many good points were made in its brief, as other noble Lords have mentioned. The RSPCA produced a very full brief. It believes that changes in law should apply to all events which involve dogs in competitive sports, not merely the NGRC-run tracks; and that vets should be independently funded. That is another good point. Vets are present at races under the NGRC rules but that does not apply generally around the world. In Australia it is not mandatory for vets to be present.

Many aspects of dog racing and animal welfare must be dealt with notwithstanding the fact that a great deal is already being done. The Retired Greyhound Trust does an excellent job. Dogs are not necessarily easy to look after when they have finished racing although, compared with horses, there is a higher rate of success when bringing them into a domestic environment provided that they do not suffer from the results of long-term injuries. Some do not lend themselves easily to a domestic environment. However, generally speaking, greyhounds are good pets. Many people enjoy having a greyhound after its racing days are over—that is, from the age of four onwards.

The costs of greyhound racing may be too low. It costs on average £3,500 to buy a dog and about £6 a day to keep it in training. The British Greyhound Racing Board issues videos and documentation to educate people on the ownership of dogs, advise on trainers and so on. That part of the sport is well regulated. We are concerned with other areas. I have not heard any suggestion of banning dog racing although I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said. There are people who want to ban steeple chasing. But events which are banned go underground and I am sure that dog racing would do so too.

This year is the 75th anniversary of racing dogs on oval tracks. It started in the 1920s in Belle Vue, Manchester, after the limited success of racing in a straight line. The RSPCA believes that dogs racing round an oval track are subject to unnecessary injury. Racing round an oval track does not put a premium on the absolute speed of the dog but on other characteristics. That makes it a more interesting spectacle and betting event. It is not realistic to talk about making bends easier because that would have a detrimental effect on the sport.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for bringing this subject before your Lordships' House. The noble Lord was not sure that such a debate would reach the four corners of the world. Your Lordships will know that the most unexpected things occur. I was told that a modest contribution from me turned up in an airport in Spain when people were waiting for a delayed flight. I cannot believe that it helped them to enjoy their air travel! But issues are picked up. I am sure that your Lordships' remarks and the undoubted response by the Minister will ensure that in the follow-up to the debate some questions will have to be answered.

The conditions for animals in the sport are not perfect. More money and more legislation are needed. I hope that the Minister will have something encouraging to say.

7.10 p.m.

Baroness Byford

My Lords, I, too, add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for giving us the opportunity to debate this important issue. I suspect that the majority of those who have spoken are dog owners. We find the dumping of dogs repugnant, particularly when those dogs have earned their living as racing greyhounds. I have never owned a racing greyhound, but in my youth I greatly enjoyed attending race meetings. At the time I never considered what happened to the dogs at the end of their racing life or to younger dogs that did not make the grade. I know a little more about the horse world, but I do not know so much about greyhounds.

As others have said, we know of 9,000 to 10,000 retired greyhounds. We have no idea how many more unregistered dogs there are, as my noble friend Lord Freeman said, but the total is too great and something needs to be done.

Dogs are retired because they do not make the grade or because they reach old age and their ability to win races diminishes. The way in which dogs are abandoned appals us all. I shall not repeat the stories that other noble Lords have told. I have been sent those stories too.

At home we have a rescue labrador who failed to make the grade as a gun dog. Fortunately for us, she was taken on by someone who was very kind and loving and I subsequently got her from that person. She has ended up in a good home, but I suspect that many others do not. She has become a special member of our family. Before her, we had a series of red setters, which are similar to greyhounds in some ways. They are not raced, but they are larger dogs. Some people who take them on as puppies do not realise their exuberance and the exercise and space that they need. As others have said, greyhounds need space and exercise, although not as much as setters. They are much more akin to my labrador. I am always delighted to hear when greyhounds are found homes.

The debate has highlighted the time and money that is needed to put greyhounds in homes. It is not just a question of finding them homes, but a question of quietening them down after they have been involved in racing, vaccinating them to ensure that they can settle into homes and, in some cases, spaying or sterilising them.

The plight of retired greyhounds is not a new phenomenon. Back in 1991 the Home Affairs Committee said that track owners and on- and off-course bookmakers should be required to donate a part of their profits to the Retired Greyhound Trust". I believe that the trust currently gets 60 per cent of its income from a voluntary levy supported by the majority of the larger bookmakers. However, it has to raise the remaining 40 per cent of its income from normal fundraising events. As other noble Lords have said, the trust remains grossly under-funded and, sadly, it finds no more homes for greyhounds today than it did nine years ago. That is a sad situation, although it is not a reflection on the trust's efforts.

The trust also works closely with organisations such as Battersea Dogs Home and the RSPCA, but even with all that extra work many retired greyhounds end up being destroyed, abandoned or exported to Spain, where they endure worse conditions than many animals in this country. I understand that homes are often found in Belgium. It is strange how dogs end up going to different countries. Belgium is apparently very helpful in finding homes for retired greyhounds.

About 2,200 retired greyhounds are placed each year. On average, it takes six months to find suitable homes for the dogs and time to calm them down. I understand that in Spain it takes up to a year before such dogs are suitably placed.

The Greyhound Forum includes the National Greyhound Racing Club, the British Greyhound Racing Board, the National Association of Greyhound Owners, the Retired Greyhound Trust, Battersea Dogs Home, the National Canine Defence League, the Blue Cross and Greyhound Rescue. That is a lot of people doing a lot of work, but we still have a problem.

On 16th February last year in another place, Jim Fitzpatrick introduced a Private Member's Bill on the welfare of retired greyhounds. Sadly, it did not go any further, but he said: I am aware that the BGRB is actively seeking agreement to increase the funding to the trust by £1 million".—[Official Report, Commons, 16/2/00; col. 952.] His Bill did not proceed, but I should like to know whether further talks were held and, if so, what progress has been made.

It has also been suggested that a levy on greyhound betting similar to that which applies to horse racing should be introduced to provide funds for improving tracks, veterinary support and greyhound welfare. Some £2 billion a year is bet on greyhound racing. Have the Government come to any conclusion about that idea? I understand that the trend is away from that, but what will go in its place? The situation is dire.

Another suggestion is the establishment of an independent authority to address the questions, complaints, criticisms and concerns that are expressed in the industry. Has such a forum been established or are the Government thinking of doing so? Does the Minister believe that the Greyhound Forum is a sufficient body to deal with such matters? If so, have the Government given a steer to the forum's deliberations and what timetable has been set for its response?

I also understand that there is currently a voluntary levy of 0.4 per cent from punters' winnings. That amounts to £4 million a year. The British Greyhound Racing Fund takes the bulk of that money to support the capital and revenue expenses of its leisure business. Only £175,000 goes to the industry's own charity, the Retired Greyhound Trust, which is struggling to meet the demands for help. As I have already said, it has to raise extra funds from the public.

Funding is crucial to secure improvements for retired greyhounds. At the moment, costs are unnecessarily borne by local authority dog warden services and other animal charities because of the industry's failure to take its responsibilities seriously. Surely it is time for the industry to put its house in order.

Providing a suitable safety net will not be easy. The National Greyhound Racing Club has 33 registered tracks. In addition, I understand that there are about 35 independent tracks, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, said, some of those are under pressure and closing. They give greater cause for concern than the registered tracks.

We all acknowledge that there is a problem. We know that improvements could be made for greyhounds during their racing lives, but this evening we are focusing on what happens to greyhounds once their racing days are over. I, too, have received many briefings. I shall not repeat the comments from Greyhounds UK that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, quoted earlier. However, later in its submission it says: The NGRC, the controlling watchdog of the industry, has made rules, which it implements to serve its priority. Trainers who withdraw dogs from a race because the rate of injuries that night suggests the track is dangerous are heavily fined. Owners who are proved to have abandoned their dogs with no thought for their well-being are rarely, if ever, disciplined". Some of the examples that we have heard tonight suggest that, while there is much good practice, others are failing the dogs and the industry.

The industry must accept that it has a duty to reform and to govern itself better. Many issues need looking into. There are also many areas where, as other noble Lords have suggested, there is simply a lack of information.

It is hoped that at the end of tonight's debate we shall have some solutions. The one matter on which I believe we are all agreed is that to take no action is not an acceptable option.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for giving us the opportunity to debate this matter. I have heard other noble Lords say that the board is on probation. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Freeman suggested that at the end of the day legislation may be needed. We look forward keenly to hearing what the Minister has to say. All of us who are present in the Chamber tonight are very concerned about the welfare of retired greyhounds.

7.20 p.m.

Lord Whitty

My Lords, the House is grateful to my noble friend Lord Lipsey for providing the opportunity to discuss this issue. Clearly, a number of well informed Members of your Lordships' House and many people outside have taken a deep interest in this subject.

Many noble Lords have expressed their appreciation of the animal itself. In that regard, the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, referred to Lord Houghton of Sowerby. But many years even before Lord Houghton's time, greyhounds were the favoured animals of the Egyptian pharaohs. They have been good friends to mankind for a great many years. As my noble friend Lord Hardy indicated, it is certainly true that not only is the greyhound an aesthetically splendid and athletic animal, it is also for the most part extremely good natured.

I must admit that I was not entirely aware of the problem before I saw the subject tabled for debate. Until the last election, responsibility for the matter rested with Home Office Ministers. It came as a slight surprise to my new department to learn that we were to take over those responsibilities. However, we relish them because they fit in very well with our other responsibilities in relation to animal welfare.

The issue was brought home to me personally only last Saturday when, quite fortuitously, I entered the market square in Salisbury and saw someone with, I believe, four greyhounds of about four or five years of age. Two had shawls with the words, "I need a home". The gentleman in question was spelling out that these were lovely, docile and good-natured dogs. Only one of them needed a muzzle in a crowded market square. However, he could not afford to continue to keep the dogs, which potentially had a long life ahead of them. I hope that he was able to find a home for them.

As has been indicated, good work has been done within the industry by the Retired Greyhound Trust and similar groups in promoting the welfare of retired racing greyhounds. However, as noble Lords have said, they do so within fairly tight financial constraints. According to my information, the Retired Greyhound Trust now rehomes approximately 2,000 retired greyhounds every year. That is a substantial achievement. However, the trust would like to rehome many more dogs. It is important to put across the message to the general dog-loving public that greyhounds make very good pets and that no particular problems are presented in taking them on as pets.

My noble friend Lord Lipsey and many other noble Lords argued that we need to spend more money on the welfare of retired greyhounds. I fully accept that. The greyhound industry has achieved much in that area, and it tries to set the highest standards of greyhound welfare and integrity—probably more so than in any other part of the world. The industry currently spends some £5 million a year on the welfare of racing greyhounds. That figure includes £1 million contributed by the betting industry to the British Greyhound Racing Fund. However, the provision for retired greyhounds is not sufficient.

As my noble friend Lady Gibson and others pointed out, a great deal of money is being made in this industry—not so much by the dog owners and those who win but by the betting industry and promoters. Concern exists with regard to the financial contribution being made. The argument has been put forward this evening that the Government should encourage the bookmaking trade to contribute more substantially to the cause. I agree with that. I believe that the off-course betting industry already encourages support for the greyhound industry, and a voluntary levy exists to encourage members to pay 0.4 per cent of bets to the British Greyhound Racing Fund. When my former colleague, George Howarth, was the Minister responsible for controls on betting, he wrote to the bookmakers' trade associations encouraging their members effectively to pass on greyhound racing's share of duty cuts in order to meet some of the wider problems.

I recognise that a substantial increase is required in the amount of money available in this field. We need to find a mechanism for raising such money. I do not agree with the noble Viscount that legislation is required. I agree with my noble friend Lord Lipsey that this is not a matter for government money; nor is it an issue in which a statutory levy should be imposed. I believe that the authorities within the industry have a responsibility to develop a proper mechanism and procedures by which they can ensure that sufficient money comes through them for the welfare of greyhounds and, in particular, for the trusts and others who provide homes for retired greyhounds.

The parallel with horse racing is by no means exact. The problems that arise are different in nature. However, we are of course moving away from a statutory levy in that field and looking to the racing and bookmaking industries to negotiate directly a commercial arrangement to replace a levy. It is hoped that such an arrangement will provide money for welfare concerns.

The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked me to give a steer tonight. I do not believe that regulation, government money or legislation are appropriate. However, the steer that I would give is that this Government believe that the industry should face up to its responsibility, as has been acknowledged on all sides of the House, and try to develop mechanisms for raising more resources in order to deal with the problem of retired greyhounds.

For the reasons outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, and others, it is difficult to put a finger on the exact size of the issue. Nevertheless, it is clear that a significant number of dogs—both those which are registered and those which race less officially—should benefit from better welfare provisions when they retire.

I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, and the noble Baroness suggested the creation of a registration system. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, suggested that a system of tattooing and chipping might be developed over time. I do not believe that we have quite reached that point. My department is considering the possibility of a voluntary scheme, but at present we are some way from moving into that area.

Reference was made to the need to tighten up regulation of the industry more generally and, in particular, of greyhound tracks, which are outside the mainstream of flapping tracks. It is true that local authorities are already required to carry out checks on the suitability of all tracks, but it is possible that we need to examine that area. However, the gambling review body has been looking at the controls on betting, gambling and lotteries, and will make recommendations for reform. I shall not pre-empt the findings of that review this evening in so far as they relate to the topic of our discussion.

Reference was also made to the export of greyhounds and, in particular, to their export to Spain. Again, it is difficult to obtain figures on that matter. Some anecdotal evidence on numbers exists, but the total number of health export licences for dogs of all kinds to Spain is just over 2,000. Of those, one would assume, although the records are not detailed, that only a small proportion would be greyhounds. I am not sure whether there is a tremendous trade—the UK is not a major breeder or exporter of greyhounds. The vast majority of greyhounds that race here are bred in the Republic of Ireland, which also exports to Spain. I note the concern about the treatment of greyhounds, wherever they come from. It is appropriate to pass on details of the views that have been expressed in this debate on the potential treatment of those greyhounds in Spain to the authorities in Spain, and probably in Ireland as well.

Several initiatives that the industry has taken are hopeful. The British Greyhound Racing Board, for example, employed independent consultants to examine the safety of racing surfaces and therefore the propensity for injury to occur among racing greyhounds that would cause them to retire prematurely. That initiative should reduce the number of greyhounds that have to retire prematurely and probably with a disability.

The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred to the board's discussions and the work done by the RSPCA, the Blue Cross, Battersea Dogs Home and the National Canine Defence League. All those bodies have a role to play and all perform a stalwart service. However, at the end of the day—this is the steer that I give tonight—the industry needs to face up to its responsibilities and provide, from its own resources, more resources for the welfare of greyhounds, which have given such pleasure to the many people involved in the industry and some profit to some—not everyone who goes to a dog track makes a profit but somebody always does. Some of that money—a relatively small amount—should be recycled and used for the welfare of these magnificent animals when they retire.

House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before eight o'clock.