The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jim Fitzpatrick): I beg to move,

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr. Chope. I wish to make the Committee aware that it is almost 10 years since I introduced a private Member’s Bill on the welfare of racing greyhounds, so naturally I am pleased to introduce the regulations today. They meet the Government’s commitment given during debates on the Animal Welfare Bill to introduce welfare regulations for all racing greyhounds, and will create minimum welfare standards for greyhound tracks in England without imposing disproportionate burdens on an industry that is already subject to the high standards required under the Animal Welfare Act 2006.

I have recently met several groups of people who are concerned about the welfare of greyhounds, and I know that they would have preferred regulations that covered many more aspects of the sport. I listened to their worries, but the Government are confident that the regulations, combined with the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act, will provide significant protection for racing greyhounds. The regulations require all English tracks to meet the same minimum welfare standards, which will either be enforced by the local authority or by an organisation that has been recognised as an enforcement body by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service—UKAS. Our consistent advice to the self-regulated sector of the greyhound industry has been that, to remain self-regulated in the 21st century, it must have UKAS accreditation.

We have been assured that the Greyhound Board of Great Britain—GBGB—is on schedule to secure accreditation, and that it will be in place by the end of March. UKAS accreditation will ensure that there is external, independent oversight of the enforcement work of the GBGB, so it would be unnecessary to require its tracks to obtain a local authority licence. Most tracks in England are members of the GBGB, and GBGB’s UKAS accreditation will ensure that the welfare standards are being enforced. The remaining six or so independent tracks will be required to be licensed by the local authority to the same standards.

All tracks will need to have a veterinarian present for all race meetings, trials and sales trials. The veterinarian must inspect each greyhound before it runs and administer treatment to any greyhound that is injured while running. The vet will be required to make a record to be kept by the track of any greyhound that is injured during a race or trial. The records can be used by the track and the track vet for the long term to judge whether there are improvements that track managers can make to reduce the number of injuries. The regulations will also require that vets are provided with appropriate facilities to carry out their work.

All greyhounds that race and trial at tracks in England will be required to be permanently identified by both earmark and microchip, with the details placed on one of a number of databases that are available to hold such records. The criteria for suitable databases are set out in part 2 of the schedule to the regulations. The GBGB has its own database, with standards that meet the requirements under part 2 so most dogs will be on one central database. The remaining small minority of greyhounds that race only on independent tracks also need to be chipped and tattooed, but their details will all need to be recorded on a suitable database.

Many people are concerned about the fate of retired racing greyhounds. I am happy to report that the industry is taking the rehoming of greyhounds far more seriously than it used to do. The number of dogs rehomed by the Retired Greyhound Trust has increased from fewer than 2,000 in 2001 to more than 4,500 in 2008, and we urge the industry to continue its good progress. The requirement that every greyhound be microchipped will also help to improve the traceability of greyhounds after they have left the sport. Tracks will be required to keep records of all greyhounds that race or trial at the track and owners and trainers will need to produce an identity card the first time that the greyhound runs at the track under their ownership.

Tracks will also be required to keep kennels for at least 20 per cent. of dogs that attend a meeting. The GBGB requires kennels for all greyhounds that race. That is aimed at maintaining integrity, and we do not believe that we can justify for welfare purposes requiring all greyhounds to be kennelled. However, we accept that some kennelling must be available when trainers bring multiple greyhounds to a meeting. It might take independent tracks some time to install such kennels, so we have provided a lead-in time for that requirement.

The regulations are a proportionate and targeted response to the welfare problems within the industry. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is committed to reviewing the regulations in five years, so if they need to be amended, extended or tightened up, there will be an opportunity to do so then. We shall also review the effectiveness of the microchipping requirement two years after the regulations come into force. However, for now and for the first time, a set of standards will apply to all tracks in England. The regulations will ensure greater welfare at tracks, where injuries are most likely to occur, and will improve the traceability of greyhounds, during and after their racing lives. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Mr. Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con): It is a pleasure to be under your watchful eye, Mr. Chope.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the long-awaited regulations. Every sport that involves animals must learn the lesson that, whatever it is doing in animal welfare work, so much can be undone by unattractive and unpleasant images appearing on our television screens and in our newspapers. The mass grave and the sight of dead greyhounds in wheelbarrows, which we all saw in 2006 at the site in Seaham, County Durham, was a striking image. As we take the regulations forward, perception figures as much as reality.

Both welfare organisations and members of the greyhound racing industry have almost unanimously acknowledged that regulation of the industry is needed. I have some concerns over certain aspects of the regulations, which I shall raise in a moment, but my party and I are supportive of their aims. In fact, we would like to have seen the regulations sooner—it is hardly lightning, in terms of legislation. We have waited four years since the promises made in the Animal Welfare Act 2006, but we are pleased to see the regulations today.

We must acknowledge, importantly, that progress on welfare has been made by the majority of the greyhound racing industry. The creation of the regulatory body, GBGB, has increased welfare funding; it has moved towards UKAS accreditation for its tracks, as the Minister said. Those steps are important, but such improvements are at present confined to GBGB’s tracks, whereas what we are talking about today are the six out of 33 where the UKAS accreditation will not apply. Even though that is a small percentage of the total tracks, a much larger percentage of dogs—most greyhounds in the country—will at some point race on the six tracks, so the regulations are vital. Considerable variation in welfare standards continues among the small minority of unregulated, independent tracks—it is important that such tracks are brought into line.

We are supportive of measures such as microchipping of all racing greyhounds. It would be interesting to see how microchipping works in a regulated industry, in that we would like to see microchipping spread much wider, across the whole dog world in this country. If we cannot achieve that in such an industry, it would be hard to say how we could possibly achieve it beyond the racing greyhound industry, although I am very confident that we shall.

The compulsory attendance of a registered vet at race tracks is also welcome, as are the minimum standards for the condition of track kennels. All such measures will go some way to ensuring the health and well-being of thousands of dogs around the country, as well as making improvements to the important issue of traceability of racing greyhounds, from puppy to grave.

We must address the elephant in the room: many individuals and welfare organisations are justifiably concerned about the remit of the regulations. According to the RSPCA, racing greyhounds spend just three to six hours of every seven to 14 days at the track. The Dogs Trust estimates that more than 80 per cent. of a racing greyhound’s life is spent at their trainer’s or breeder’s premises. Yet the regulations before us have no mention of welfare standards beyond the track.

I accept that certain regulations may be appropriate for the track but not for off it. As the Minister said, the Animal Health Act and other legislation provide for animal welfare standards off the track. Similarly, it is true that any animal is covered by a wide variety of provisions under such legislation, but the Animal Welfare Act does not go far enough and the argument can just as easily be applied to on the track as off it. It seems a little anomalous that, while the Government are concerned about the disparity in welfare standards between independent tracks, they seem unconcerned that that disparity could be mirrored in breeders’ and trainers’ premises off the track. It is worth looking at the example of the horse racing industry, which I concede is a vastly different sport. It has roughly 70,000 racehorses with registered trainers, and the stables inspectorate, paid for out of the levy, manages to regulate trainers’ establishments with only five inspectors for the whole United Kingdom. With 14,000 greyhounds, there must be a way of ensuring that there are consistent animal welfare standards on a more local basis at no huge cost to the industry, or certainly not to the taxpayer. Will the Minister expand on his argument for choosing not to address the welfare of racing greyhounds beyond the track?

The explanatory memorandum that the Minister’s Department helpfully provided states that 87 per cent. of respondents called for regulations to reach beyond the track. Further concerns were raised about how enforceable the regulations will be. Local Authorities Co-ordinators of Regulatory Services—LACORS—has expressed concern about enforceability by local authorities, the bodies charged with enforcement. Will the Minister tell us what discussions he has had on enforcement with local authorities?

There are also questions about the accessibility of the data that will have to be collected by tracks under the regulations, such as the attending vet’s treatment records and the register of injuries. It has been suggested by some welfare organisations that the records will be of little benefit if they cannot be requested by licensing authorities and vets. It is unclear in the regulations who will have access to the records, and obviously there are data protection issues, but we do not want to have records kept for records’ sake. I would be grateful for the Minister’s reassurance on that point and also on the retirement of greyhounds, which is of concern to many Members in the House and a large number of our constituents. I was interested to see in the explanatory memorandum that the all-party group on animal welfare has calculated that a minimum of 4,728 dogs each year in Great Britain were unaccounted for after their racing lives had finished. As the Minister said, much work has been done, and that is welcome, but much more could be done to address people’s concerns.

While I have concerns, some of which I hope the Minister will address, like many welfare organisations I am glad to see measures in the regulations that will result in a marked improvement to the welfare of racing greyhounds. We must act swiftly to ensure that coherent welfare standards are established, that racing greyhounds are protected and that the integrity of this excellent sport, which is enjoyed by many thousands of people, is maintained.

Mr. Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD): It is a pleasure and privilege to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr. Chope. I will not detain the Committee for long, because the hon. Member for Newbury has been comprehensive in his response to the regulations that have been set out by interested bodies. It is a privilege to have animals under one’s care, ownership and management, and it should not be abused, whether they are companion animals or animals used in an industry such as greyhound racing or indeed meat production. It is the mark of a civilised society that we look after our animals in an appropriate fashion.

There has been concern for the welfare of greyhounds throughout their lives, from when they are bred for racing, through their racing lives and after. The point made by animal welfare groups that the regulations, while they are welcome, do not go far enough is well made. The whole perception of the greyhound racing industry would be improved if a full set of regulations were put in place. It is a leisure industry, but many people who would like to attend greyhound racing may be put off by some of the sights that we have seen on our television screens and some of the stories that have appeared in newspapers. Given the number of greyhounds that have to be bred to produce the number needed for racing, what happens to the puppies and young greyhounds that, for whatever reason, are not suitable for racing or do not have the physical ability to compete at the highest level?

We applaud the fact that a veterinary surgeon is needed to attend each race meeting and to keep records. Many improvements in welfare in horse racing have arisen because records were kept about the design of a course or of jumps that caused problems for animal welfare. Those problems have since been eliminated, and the welfare of the horse improved. I am sure that the same argument applies to greyhound racing. Anything that can reduce the number of injuries to these highly trained and powerful animals, which are more liable to injury through competing at a high level, is welcome.

I see that DEFRA has looked at five approaches to such matters, and has decided on the licensing alternative. That is the right way forward, but at the same time we must be mindful that it is not so burdensome that it eliminates the activity altogether. I am not a great expert in greyhound racing, but as I understand it, a number of courses have closed in recent years. Whatever the cause of that, whether it is property redevelopment or something else, the sport is not expanding but declining. We must ensure that legitimate activities have proper regulation, but without the burden.

The regulation is for England. I am not aware of any greyhound courses in the devolved nations, but if there were, or if there was a proposal to set up such courses there, I presume that it would be a responsibility for the devolved Parliament or Assemblies to regulate in a similar manner. However, I know that there are greyhound owners and trainers who live in the devolved nations, and I wonder how the regulations will apply to them.

We welcome the regulations, but we wish that they were extended across the whole life of greyhounds. That would benefit not only greyhound welfare but the industry, enhancing its perception in the public’s view.

Rob Marris (Wolverhampton, South-West) (Lab): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr. Chope. I pay tribute to the work of the all-party group, particularly of my former parliamentary neighbour, now Baron Bilston, former MP for Wolverhampton, South-East, which is adjacent to my constituency in Wolverhampton. In that city, we have the Monmore Green greyhound track, one of the 26 Greyhound Board of Great Britain tracks, which has made great strides in recent years, for example, by introducing air-conditioned kennels.

The first point that I want to make concerns the cost to local authorities. My understanding is that should the Greyhound Board of Great Britain be successful in achieving UKAS accreditation regarding the enforcement of welfare standards, the 26 GBGB tracks would be exempted from having to obtain a licence. However, if for some reason, that accreditation does not go ahead, there will be some burden on local authorities on licensing. Will there be any financial support from the Minister’s Department for the burden that would fall on local authorities, such as my own, Wolverhampton city council? Also, what is the estimate of the financial burden for licensing on a local authority? Due to my lack of diligence, I was not able to find it easily in the regulatory impact assessment.

My second point concerns animal welfare issues, which have already been raised. I understand that the Government believe that there is sufficient protection in animal welfare regulation, but some of us are not so sure. I would like the Minister’s assurance that the matter will be kept under review, and that if there is insufficient protection for greyhounds in practice his Department will return to it.

Thirdly, I understand that the kennelling requirement will not come into force for another three years, on 6 April 2013. At that point, only 20 per cent. of dogs will need to be kennelled. There may be good reasons for that, but on the surface, that appears to be an insufficient animal welfare standard, which, moreover, will not take place for another three years. I realise that there needs to be a period of transition on such matters, but I would like some reassurance that the issue will be kept under control. Perhaps the Minister can also give a brief explanation as to why the requirement is only 20 per cent.

Angela Watkinson (Upminster) (Con): As an officer of the all-party group on retired greyhounds, I am pleased to see that the Retired Greyhound Trust supports the regulations. As we know, the racing life of greyhounds is a relatively short part of their life span, and they have many years to give when they retire. They make wonderful companion animals—they do not need a lot of exercise, and sleep quite a lot. In fact, I plan to have three when I retire.

The briefing from the Greyhound Board of Great Britain states that 80 per cent. of greyhounds retiring from racing are rehomed. Will the Minister say a little bit more about the other 20 per cent.? Are they not rehomed because they do not have the suitable temperament to be a pet? Are they euthanased? Is it because of injuries? What could be done to reduce that 20 per cent. so that as many as possible find loving homes in which to live out the rest of their lives?