National Assembly for Wales

If I could ask firstly why you believe it's necessary to ban greyhound racing. Who would like to go first on this? Vanessa.

So, at Hope Rescue, whilst we're concerned about cradle-to-grave welfare issues, including breeding, wastage of the pups that don't make the grade, kennelling, racing and rehoming, our main concern is the high number of injuries and deaths. The Greyhound Board of Great Britain’s own figures show that in 2024 there were 3,809 injuries and 346 deaths for reasons other than natural causes. This also included an increase in the number of track fatalities: 123 up from 109. Having personally attended the Valley track on numerous occasions over a two-year period whilst volunteering for our Amazing Greys project, I witnessed first-hand many dogs being seriously injured at Valley track. I can assure you that every single one of those dogs suffered in immense pain. There's no place for that level of suffering in a compassionate Wales that cares about animal welfare. 

Thank you, Vanessa. Is there anyone who wants to add anything to what Vanessa has said?

Yes, I'm happy to come in there. I think ultimately—

Forgive me, Chris, I should have said at the start—I should have asked you all to introduce yourselves. When you each speak first, would you mind introducing yourselves for the record as well?

Sure. I'm Chris Burghes, I'm the chief executive of Blue Cross. 

Thank you. 

So, yes, just to build on Vanessa's point, I think, ultimately, it comes down to three reasons. Firstly, you've got the life of a greyhound and the quality of life that gives, and Vanessa has described far better than I can the issues that that brings out. I think, secondly, it is inherently dangerous as an industry, as a sport, to run around that oval track, particularly when you go into the first bend, and the causes of the pressures within that and the speed the dogs are doing means that they're likely to be damaged, and it causes increased risk in racing across that. And then thirdly I think there's something around leadership and addressing that. As a charity, we have been involved for about 20 years behind the scenes to try and reduce risk within the industry and try and reduce injuries, and we got to the point in 2022 where we felt materially you couldn't address it, and actually that's why we ended up calling for a ban. Ultimately, we felt that the industry itself couldn't address it, and there was an inherent danger in the track itself that actually meant that we couldn't step away from that, and that materially you would never get to a point where you could make the industry safe, and therefore the only option was to call for a phased ban of the industry.

Could I ask, Chris—? A number of your organisations have changed their policy position; previously, you'd advocated for better welfare during racing rather than a ban. Could you talk us through, please, why you've changed your position on that and why it is that you've come to the conclusion that a ban would be the best approach rather than better regulation?

Yes, sure. I'll happily take that on, and then I'll also pass over to the RSPCA, who’ve been far more involved with reports for a longer period than we have, if that's okay. So, I think, from our perspective—. I used to sit on the greyhound forum, but in 2022 they published their draft, I suppose, welfare report—ultimately it has become ‘A Good Life for Every Greyhound’, their welfare strategy. We got to the point when we looked at that and thought materially it's not going to make a difference to the welfare of greyhounds in the industry, and that's been shown now with the statistics. I think they started recording accurate data in about 2018. They've published their data for 2024 and, over that period, you've seen a 7.7 per cent reduction in injuries on tracks, which should be welcomed, but actually you're still at a point where over 1 per cent of dogs running around a track are going to be injured. So, if you run 100 times, you'll be injured, and death rates have gone up this year. So, they haven't gone to what are the real industry problems. If you look at the welfare strategy, it says things like, 'Track design: we'll look at things like the use of salt on the track'. Actually, it's the bends and everything else that causes those pressures, and they're not prepared to do that or address it. Where they've had the opportunity, like at the Valley track, when they brought it into regulation, they haven't addressed it. When they built a new track at Wolverhampton—which was done as a horse racing track, so you had lots of space—they didn't look at things like just a long track, a straight track instead. They just built the traditional oval track, with all the inherent dangers that it has. So, ultimately, you got to the conclusion that we didn't think, materially, you were going to ever see a significant drop in injury rates or death rates, and therefore the only option was to call for a ban. But the RSPCA have been involved far longer than we have with this.

Thank you, Chris. Billie, did you want to come in?

Yes. Thank you. So, the RSPCA has worked for a number of years to try and secure improvements to the welfare of greyhounds. Then, because we did not feel that this approach was making progress quick enough, or enough progress to be deemed as being sufficient enough to protect the welfare of the dogs, we undertook a comprehensive internal policy review in 2022. This review highlighted key issues associated with the industry that have a significant impact on the welfare of the dogs. So, these cover the inherent danger that racing poses to the dogs in question, in terms of the threat of injury or death to them, as demonstrated by the statistics published by the Greyhound Board of Great Britain from 2018 onwards. Our review also found significant welfare challenges for the greyhounds through all stages of their life—so, from breeding to kennelling to racing, and then after, once they retire from the industry. Our review also found that the general health of the dogs, including the number and severity of injuries sustained during racing, was of high concern, and that there's a lack of transparency regarding the industry practices and enforcement of regulatory standards as well.

So, because of that, we then looked towards all options, including would more regulation be impactful, or should we therefore call for a ban on racing. We decided—. Having reviewed the evidence, we found that only an end to greyhound racing in Wales, and further afield, can truly protect the welfare of the dogs in question, because this is not something that can be achieved via any regulation, be that through Welsh Government, GBGB, or otherwise. Obviously, we've heard today about the injuries and deaths to the dogs, which is, of course, one of our greatest concerns, but then there are other issues as well that could not be solved by licensing. For example, more than half of greyhounds leaving the industry find themselves in rescue centres, such as those of ourselves here on the panel today, and we are facing a rehoming crisis in our sector. The greyhound industry's undeniable reliance upon the sector is putting more pressure on our already stretched resources, and licensing would not resolve that.

Then you also have to consider the insecure funding model that the greyhound racing industry is reliant upon, because there is no statutory levy for greyhound racing. This is different to other sports, such as horse racing, for example. So, just to give a comparison, the voluntary levy for greyhound racing totalled £7.3 million in 2023-24, with this being a 4 per cent reduction on the previous year. In comparison, the statutory levy for horse racing totalled £105 million over the same time period. So, without that sustainable funding, there is no way to ensure that the industry can afford to implement its welfare strategies and truly protect the welfare of these dogs. So, that, combined with the injuries and deaths to the dogs in question, is why we've made the decision to call for a ban on greyhound racing.

Thank you, Billie. Alun, you wanted to come in.

Yes. I'm just interested in the evidence base you provide for that conclusion. I'm instinctively of the view that we should only ban something if there is no other alternative available to us as a society, and that banning something should be very much the last tool that we reach for. Whereas it does feel sometimes, in this way, that it's the first tool that you've reached for, because I haven't seen any evidence of sustained changes to regulation that have been able to have a chance to demonstrate that regulation can work. I don't pretend that regulation is the answer to everything all of the time, but I would suggest that we need to be able to demonstrate that regulation can change behaviour and regulation can achieve the sorts of safety results that we'd want to see.

Well, there are actually regulations that are relevant to England, but then the statistics that we have told you here today, they're relevant to tracks in both Wales and England, and those regulations were actually introduced in 2010. They don't actually cover trainers' kennels, where greyhounds spend 95 per cent of their lives—some of them do—and we've actually engaged—. We did consider, obviously, regulation; we've pushed for regulation in Wales for over 20 years.

We were involved in the development of the code of practice for the track while it was still independent. As far as we're aware, that was never referred to. We've also sat on groups such as the greyhound forum UK, which Chris mentioned. We've worked directly with the Greyhound Board of Great Britain on the development of policies and codes of practice. So, calling for a ban was definitely not the first thing we considered. We've worked for over two decades in Wales to try and secure improvements, but, as I mentioned earlier, the progress just wasn't made on a wide enough scale to truly protect the welfare of the dogs, and progress was not happening quickly enough. It wasn't a decision that we took lightly.

Obviously, as the RSPCA, everything we do is based on evidence and science, and, the review that I mentioned, that undertook various methods. We worked with a number of independent experts to enable us to take a comprehensive and informed review. We obviously approached stakeholders and had testimonials from them. We looked at studies and literature and reviewed the relevant legislation, regulation, code of practice. There was a lot that we did and tried to do before calling for a ban.

Do you know, I was the Minister responsible for animal welfare for a period of time post 2010? I don't remember this subject ever crossing my desk. I really don't. You may remember I forced through, in many ways, legislation on the control of horses back 10 years ago now—well, we worked together on it, didn't we—and I don't remember greyhound racing as a subject that was raised either by the general public or by many campaign groups, quite frankly. So, I'm interested as to how much work was actually done over that period and what impact it's had.

For me, this has simply come on my radar in the last few years, very recently, and I didn't even realise there was a track in Ystrad Mynach until somebody said it should close, you know. And I don't know anybody in my constituency who really knew there was a track there either. So, it was never anything that was raised with me by constituents, raised by campaign groups, until very, very recently, in my memory. So, I'm interested that you're making the case that there was a lot of this work going on, because I've no recollection of any of it. Sorry.

Well, yes, I'm not sure how much was directly lobbied to Ministers or—

Well, I was the Minister.

—to Ministers or Members of the Senedd. A lot of this work would have taken place for the Animal Welfare Network for Wales, which has been long established, and would have been established while you were a Minister as well.

In terms of the public knowledge of greyhound racing—the relevant statistics by the Greyhound Board of Great Britain, there was no publication of them until 2018. So, there was a lack of transparency then, and then we still don't have trackside statistics now. So, there is still not complete transparency, although it is better, perhaps, than the time period that you were talking about. So, I think without that sort of data it's very difficult to enlighten the public about what is actually happening, or to know ourselves what was happening, despite the work that we were doing behind the scenes.

But now we're in a position where we have that evidence base and we are now able to say, with confidence, that only an end to greyhound racing can protect the welfare of the dogs in question.

I'm going to bring Vanessa and James in on this. I'll bring Vanessa in first and then I'll come to you, James.

I think it's also important to note that we didn't really know what was going on at the track. We didn't really have access to it. It was only through our Amazing Greys project that we got into the track and we could see first-hand what those welfare issues were.

So, when did that happen?

That started in 2018, when we first went in. We were there for two years, then we had lockdown, and we still supported the track for another year after that, and that's when we really saw first-hand what those welfare issues were.

So, it was 2018, not 2010, when you started this work?

No. The work previously was carried out by the Animal Welfare Network for Wales, but in terms of why, as Members, you might not have heard much about it from the public, or from Hope Rescue, certainly, was because we didn't start our project til later. But, previously, concerns had been raised by Greyhound Rescue Wales, who were taking some of the dogs from the track at that point, and other members of the Animal Welfare Network for Wales.

I'm going to bring James in now.

Thank you. James Fitch, public affairs manager at Dogs Trust. I just want to come in on the point around regulation a little bit further. So, as Billie said, ourselves, the Dogs Trust, we've also long been concerned about the welfare of racing greyhounds, and we started to look into reviewing our policy position in 2021, and then, as part of that, with the independent review, we took that in 2022. 

So, we did a lot of work with the industry prior to this and a lot of work in terms of trying to come for reform and make sure that the welfare issues and the welfare needs of the greyhounds involved in the industry could be safeguarded. But, unfortunately, we just did not see enough movement on that side of things and that's why we had to come out and change our policy position on that.

And on the wider question of giving regulation a chance, I think, just to really hammer home that point, there are a number of changes that we would need to see the industry make, because, obviously, we are concerned about the activity itself, but we have a myriad of welfare concerns from cradle to grave when it comes to the welfare of racing greyhounds. And those number of changes that would need to be made, we did not believe would be feasible or possible by the industry. I think Billie touched a little bit there on the funding and the lack there of it.

And then, just secondly, on the point around the regulations in England, I think, unfortunately, these regulations are just not enough in their current form. Billie touched there on the point that they don't account for the time that the greyhounds are kennelled, which is where they often spend a lot of their time. Also, this was actually identified, and these issues were identified, in the post-implementation review, which I believe was conducted in 2015 by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and no changes have been made to that. So, I think, overall, the key point is that no amount of regulation could possibly make an inherently dangerous activity safe enough to safeguard the welfare of these animals.

Thank you, James. Okay, because regulation has come up, I think it will make most sense if we go to Llŷr now, and then we'll come back to Alun later. So, Llŷr.

You mentioned the regulations in England. Of course, DEFRA undertook a post-legislative—or post-implementation review, I should say—and it concluded that it appears to have been successful, So, I don't know how you would respond to that.

James wants to come in on this.

Thank you. Yes, if I can come back in on this, from our perspective—I just mentioned it there—we don't believe that they have improved the welfare of dogs in England enough. What we can say, though, is that, although these regulations do improve some measures and include some measures that improve the welfare of racing greyhounds, I think the real crucial point is that—again, as Billie and I have just mentioned—they only account for the time that the dog is at the racetrack and not the other side of the greyhound's life, in particular the kennels.

I did touch upon the post-implementation review and the lack of action on those specific issues that were mentioned, so I won't mention that again, but what I would say is, considering that they account for the time that the dog is at the racetrack, I think, overall, from GBGB's own statistics, it's clear to see that the statistics around deaths and injuries of the greyhounds in the industry have not decreased to a point where I think you could confidently say that the welfare of these animals has improved, as still, every time a dog steps onto a track, they have a chance of being seriously injured, or worse.

So, extending the regulations to cover those omissions that you mentioned, obviously, is not going to be something that you would be willing to try.

I think there are too many areas that would need to be amended and included in order for us to be confident that the welfare of greyhounds is safeguarded and protected. And I think, again, coming back to some of the issues that we identified in our internal report, there are so many more issues than just the welfare of the animals at the track and also the welfare of the animals within the kennels. I won't include all the issues here, because it's a very long list, but a couple to mention are the lack of traceability and that we would need a complete traceability system. We would need transparent collection and independent verification of births, deaths and injury data. We'd need accountability for dogs exiting racing, and the sales or adoptions of greyhounds that have exited racing as well.

Another key point, really, to make is that we would need independently funded regulatory oversight and enforcement. And, on the enforcement point, we'd need animal welfare checks and enforcement to the point that we'd need unannounced animal welfare checks to be conducted at racetracks, residential kennels, rearing properties and breeding establishments.

And there are many, many more points that I could go on to there, but, again, going back to it, the overall crux is that the activity itself is inherently dangerous, added on top of those myriad of welfare concerns that we have about the greyhound from cradle to grave.

Okay. So, what about GBGB's system of regulation, then, because, obviously, they regulate greyhound racing at stadia through a licensing system? What are your views on how appropriate that is?

I'll just check if—

I was asking the panel generally.

James, I'll just check if anyone in the room wanted to come in on this firstly.

We'll let James—

Okay. I'll continue—

Okay, James.

—and then I can throw it over to anyone else who would like to start. I think the key thing we need to talk about here is self-regulation and the concerns that we have with self-regulation. So, the concerns we have with self-regulation in the licensed racing sector really relate to conflicts of interest, the adequacy of regulatory arrangements and the governance for greyhound welfare. So, a conflict of interest exists with self-regulation by GBGB in that it is responsible for the commercial operations of the industry as well as organising, conducting and disciplinary actions in response to inspections relating to greyhound welfare and care. So, I think the first thing to note is that self-regulation is a concern for us.

Secondly, again—it's come up a few times and probably will continue to be a theme of this session—is a serious concern around lack of traceability. Again, the industry has taken some steps to improve in this regard over the last few years, and that's to be applauded, but we still don't believe that they go far enough. The lack of transparency, specifically over the number of dogs being born in or imported into the UK, registered and entering the racing each year, their racing longevity and the clear exit data, is really challenging for us. Without this information, it's really challenging to understand the passage of individual greyhounds and what their welfare experience across the five domains within the UK greyhound racing industry is. So, with most dogs bred, reared and educated on private properties outside of the UK, there is little or no visibility of the whole-life experience of greyhounds in the UK racing on GBGB tracks, and even less for greyhounds racing in the independent sector.

And I think my last point on this, before I throw it over to the rest of the panel, if they have further thoughts, is that neither GBGB nor local authorities publicly display injury data by racetrack, and that breakdown is really, really important to understand the welfare issues at specific tracks. In addition, the lack of transparency on the outcomes of licensing inspections or residential kennel audits is really tricky for us. And then, finally, additionally, there is no evidence provided to demonstrate how such information is collated and how that informs industry development to ensure meaningful changes are actually then made. Whereas, if this was collated, reviewed and actioned, such information could really help to identify those systemic trends across different jurisdictions and be used to take the steps necessary to improve the welfare of greyhounds.

Just on that self-regulation piece, I can understand where a concern may lie, but, obviously, they are subject to self-regulation under the United Kingdom Accreditation Service, which is a Government-appointed body, and it assesses these organisations and it undertakes checks, et cetera. So, you don't believe that that's an appropriate system in any context, or just specifically in this one.

Okay, James wants to come back in.

Sorry, if I could just come back in on the UKAS point.

That's fine.

I think UKAS is an example of third party certification that appears to offer independence and legitimacy, but, in reality, the UKAS certification does not provide an assessment of greyhounds or their welfare. It's purely a document-auditing certification, which then, obviously, is removed from any assessment of greyhounds or that the document accurately reflects what is occurring or what has occurred at those tracks.

[Inaudible.]—this context, you believe that's the case in all of UKAS's work.

Sorry—I believe that's the case in what? It broke up a little bit at the start.

So, that's a criticism of yours levied at UKAS, which is relevant in all contexts, not just in this one.

I'm talking about this specific issue with the welfare of greyhounds, specifically. I'm not, as the Dogs Trust or me personally, passing any thoughts or blame onto UKAS as an organisation.

Okay.

Just to check, did anyone else want to come in further? Billie.

I just wanted to come in on the point that, before these dogs are registered with GBGB, there are no standards in place for them there. So, 85 per cent of greyhounds that race in the UK are actually born in Ireland. In 2024, there were 5,133 new greyhounds registered, and only 795 of these dogs were actually born in Britain, with the remainder coming from Ireland. Therefore, GBGB's regulations do not apply to them, or UKAS's, for that example. So, again, within the regulated sector, there is a lack of transparency and traceability relating to the number of dogs being born in or imported into the UK, registered and entering the racing industry. So, that in itself is a big problem for us, because nobody knows, obviously, how those dogs are bred, how they are reared and how they are treated before they find themselves under GBGB regulation.

Okay. Diolch yn fawr. 

So, we've had a few references to the dangers of running around the track, the oval track, and, obviously, there are issues in that respect. I raised with the Deputy First Minister—was it last week or the week before, when we had our last session—. The legislation, of course, is to ban the racing of greyhounds behind a lure, around a track. So, slightly tongue in cheek, I said, 'Well, okay, if the track was in a straight line'—and it was interesting the reference Chris made to considerations about straight-line racing in developing stadia, et cetera—'that would not be banned under this legislation.' How does that sit with you, acknowledging, as you said, that it's the shape of the track, or the trajectory of the running around a circle, that's the biggest issue here?

I think, because no-one runs on a straight track, there isn't any evidence of the safety around it. So, I think, if the legislation could be strengthened, that would be great. But I think it's almost a commercial decision for the industry, and the reason that I would take an assumption that they haven't done it is because, commercially, it doesn't stack up for the product when you put it into a betting industry and everything else, and, therefore, it's not commercially viable. So, it would be a significant risk for the Valley, for example, to make a straight track when it could, quite simply, be banned. It's not cheap to build a track. So, I think the risk is quite low they would go and do that, but if we could strengthen any legislation, it would be great, and it would strengthen what we're trying to do here. Our problem is that it's not just, obviously, the track that's the problem. It's where a significant amount of injuries come from, but it's the whole life of the greyhound. 

I think it's important that we can review it in the future. So, if we do find it's an unintended consequence, and that the consequence is that they do move to straight-track racing, the legislation should be able to be reviewed, and we can look at evidence in the future on that.

And in terms of the track itself, even if a track was straight, there are other issues with tracks, as opposed to just their shape—for example, the way that the track is maintained, the traps that are used, the lures that are used. All of that makes a difference in terms of safety. So, even if you were to switch to a straight track, those issues would still be relevant. 

Okay. I'm going to bring Gareth in, and then I'll come to Alun. 

Why wouldn't you do that now, then? 

Well, I don't think—

Because, along those lines, a ban is a ban. So, whether it's a circular racing track, a straight racing track, lures, or whatever you've referenced, why wouldn't you do that now within this legislation, and push for that to be in it now, rather than doing a future assessment of what the consequences would be of this current legislation? Why wouldn't you just do that now, then? If you truly, truly believed that this was the right step to take, just do a blanket ban and do away with greyhound racing right now—that's it—in that regard.

Well, we are—

Why even bother doing an assessment in the future to assess the potential consequences? I'm just being devil's advocate at the moment, but why not now, then?

Well, we are looking for this legislation to end greyhound racing in Wales once and for all. Obviously, we don't have straight tracks at the moment, and there is no evidence base around straight tracks—whether they're better or not. And I think the question wouldn't be, for us, 'Why wouldn't we do that?' Obviously, the stadium spent £2 million just two years ago to bring its track up to GBGB standards. They didn't consider making a straight track at the time. Therefore, I think it's probably a question for them as to why they would want to do that. 

But, obviously, I think it's standard practice to review legislation once it's come in, to ensure it's had the desired effect. We've spoken about post-implementation reviews of other legislation. Obviously, it's important to not just pass legislation, but to make sure that it's having the desired impact. So, yes, we may need to review it, but we want this particular piece of legislation to end greyhound racing in Wales once and for all, and that is what we are hoping for it to achieve.

I think you're certainly making a case that regulation is patchy, shall we say, and needs to be improved. I'm not sure that you're making the case for a ban at the moment, I'll be quite honest with you, in terms of what I'm hearing from you. But, in terms of where we're going with this particular Bill at the moment, do you believe that the term 'greyhound' should be more tightly defined on the face of the Bill?

I think we're comfortable with what's in the Bill. I think 'greyhound' is a defined breed under the Kennel Club's rules. So, I think, as it stands at the moment, we will be comfortable with what's written in the Bill as it stands. I don't think it's going to give any leeway for other types of racing within the industry. So, I think, because of the definition around a greyhound, we'd be more than comfortable with it. 

Okay. Everybody seems happy with that. Okay. In terms of offences under section 1, and I'm thinking of the clause where a person commits an offence if they're involved in organising greyhound racing, from your perspective is that clear and specific enough?

We do have some concerns around this, especially if an enforcement officer was to turn up and nobody accepted responsibility for having organised the greyhound racing or if there was no solid evidence in terms of who was the organiser. That is concerning, because you could end up in a situation where nobody ends up being penalised for illegal racing. Because of that, we do question whether there is scope to widen the provisions to perhaps cover owners, trainers, participants. For things like hare coursing—and obviously there are significant differences, but essentially it is an illegal activity involving dogs—even attendees are liable. So, I guess there is a question as to whether it should be broadened, because if you're in a situation where nobody accepts responsibility and they're all pointing at each other, then yes, that would be an issue and the legislation would not have the desired effect, which is concerning. 

So you would criminalise an attendee. 

Yes, and obviously the relevant penalty is an unlimited fine. Obviously, it would be for the courts to determine what would be appropriate, but we'd hope to see that utilised where there are repeat offences. But if it's against the law, then it's against the law, and the law needs to be upheld if that is what is decided as being the right track for the Welsh Government to take.

In terms of the timescale for this, I'll have to read the transcript, but I'm not sure you've been very clear as a panel in terms of the way in which you've worked towards this. We've heard lots of different dates mentioned in different answers and different responses in terms of the work that's been done in an attempt to improve regulation. At the moment, the timescale for such a ban would be no sooner than 1 April 2027 and no later than 1 April 2030. Do you have views on that timescale? 

James wants to come in first, I think.

I didn't know if there was someone in the room, but I'm happy to start and then I can pass over again to the panel. Our views on the timescales are that we believe that, if the legislation was passed by 2026, we think it'd be positive that a ban could come into place by 1 April 2027. As a coalition, we are highly supportive of this. However, in its current form, its provisions may also see greyhound racing continue here until April 2030, and we don't believe that such a long time frame is necessary. I think we can demonstrate this through the work that we've done on the Wales greyhound partnership. For those who might be unaware, the Wales greyhound partnership comprises nine animal welfare organisations, including our coalition's members.

At the current time, we have the capacity to rehome up to 258 dogs, and we are actively preparing to rehome the dogs affected. That's why we question whether such a long time frame is necessary, because I think we can demonstrate that 12 months would be sufficient. With an average length of time for rehoming of two months and around 120 dogs rehomed since its conception, 75 from Valley, the partnership has clearly demonstrated that it's definitely possible to rehome dogs affected by the ban in a much shorter time period than the current legislation would allow for. That's why we have been calling for greyhound racing to be ended in Wales within 12 months of the passing of the relevant legislation.

Does anyone in the room want to come in on that?

Could I add something on behalf of Greyhound Rescue Wales? My name is Sibylle Kuonen, and I was originally a volunteer for the Amazing Greys project, but more recently I've been associated with the Greyhound Watch Wales project under Greyhound Rescue Wales. We are monitoring racing activities at the Valley track and we've been compiling data on the volume of racing, on the number of dogs that are being raced at the track, how many are being added in, how many are joining, and then how many are leaving. We're aiming to track them then as they eventually might be surrendered to the Welsh greyhound partnership, and so on.

What we've managed to assess to date based on the available data, so that's the Greyhound Board of Great Britain’s own data on their website, is that it's around 300 greyhounds that are actively needed to race at the Valley track, to be able to provide the number of races as in betting opportunities per year, which are around 10,000 every year that are made available for online betting. We've worked out, based on the number of dogs that have been added in, that have joined on a monthly basis, and then have no longer appeared on the race data system, that around 120 dogs per year, which is about 10 dogs per month, are entering the Welsh track system, and as many are then leaving the track and are needing to be replaced. We've also worked out, based on a sub-group of dogs that have arrived with rescues, that at the age when they left the racing industry, they are only three years and four months old. So, these are very young dogs. They start racing at the youngest when they're about 15 months old. So, it's a very short duration that they're actually actively racing at that track and they could be regulated by the industry.

We've also worked out that the average career length of the dogs that have raced, and have already appeared to have left the industry, is 15 months. That on its own means that basically half of the population at the Valley track would be naturally turned over every 15 months. That would indicate that going for a ban as soon as possible, with all the data that James already provided, means that it's perfectly feasible to not be replacing 120 dogs every year by going for an early ban, but also to basically support the dogs that are naturally coming out. And basically over a year to allow for the population to naturally reduce—as the dogs are leaving without adding more dogs in—sounds very feasible, even just looking at the data that we're seeing in terms of what's going on on the track. 

Thank you so much, Sibylle.

If I could just give an example as well, relevant to the 12-month time frame that we are proposing. The industry has decided to close its track in Swindon. This was announced in March of this year and the racing will cease there in December. Therefore, it's been feasible for other tracks, so we'd question why wouldn't it be feasible here, essentially.

Thank you. I think Llyr wants to come in.

Yes, I'm very interested in numbers of dogs coming in et cetera, but of course, that might well carry on. All that's changing here is that they won't be able to race in Wales. So, you can still breed and train and just go elsewhere to race them.

They can, but what we've found is that 85 per cent of the dogs are not bred in Wales. Welsh breeding appears to be a very minor part. We have very few litters where we have evidence that they were bred in Wales and then raced at a track. We've also got very few dogs that we've traced that were linked to being bred in Wales and that then went on to race at other tracks—that seems to be a very small proportion.

Yes, okay, because I was just thinking that if there are 120 dogs a year coming in, that doesn't necessarily stop because of the ban, it just means that they're not racing in Wales.

They will probably still be coming in from Ireland, but they might be then resident in Wales, but they would be potentially racing at tracks in England.

And just to add that many of the members of our coalition are also calling for a ban on greyhound racing in England as well. 

I'm well aware of that.

And that, just to add, if a ban comes into force here, once Swindon has closed, the nearest track will be over three hours away. So, there is the practical and feasibility too. 

I think Gareth wants to come in. 

Just on that point, we've made a lot of references to Ireland, but have there been any conversations with Irish authorities to see what volume of greyhounds are coming over to Wales or indeed to the UK as a whole? And what assessment and live situation is going on, or conversations with Ireland, to ask why are you bringing them over, if you like—to have those conversations to ask what's the situation here, what's the economic impact, and what can we actually do differently to tackle the source of the issue rather than make legislation against the consequences, if you like.

Can I add something to that? There is some data that should be available via the Animal and Plant Health Agency, because these are commercial imports. So, these are not the dogs that are being imported as pets. So, they are declared to APHA, so it would be perfectly possible to check as they're entering the UK via ferry ports.

I think in terms of data as well, GBGB's own data showed that in 2024, 84 per cent of new registrations came from Ireland. So, that's quite a lot when you look at just how many dogs are being bred here for it. That is a worry, and I think the estimations based on available data from 2017 to 2021—which was shared by the Irish Coursing Club through the registration system in Ireland and GBGB—suggests that around 10 to 20 per cent of those greyhounds cannot be accounted for after their first year. So, yes, you are right: there's definitely a problem with Ireland. Obviously, we're focusing on Wales at the moment, and as Billie said, we're also looking at—

I suppose a bit of a sharper question—maybe I was dancing around it a little bit: what conversations have been had with Ireland to say, 'What is going on? Why is this the case that there are unsolicited greyhounds coming over to the UK?' What is that mechanism to have those conversations, and what can we do to improve that situation, get more of a collegiate sort of approach to this, rather than it being fragmented across a very small geographical area, which adds to many complexities in that sense?

It's a valid and good point to make. I think from our perspective, any discussion we can have—. Because ultimately, as you make the point, people can still train and race from Wales, and if we can improve that, even after a ban is put in place, we should adopt every opportunity. We do have a sister organisation in Ireland, Irish Blue Cross, and Dogs Trust are based in Ireland. So, anything we can do to facilitate that discussion with the Irish authorities we'd be more than happy to do. 

But you haven't had a conversation with Ireland. 

We've tried in the past, and we've had various discussions with members of the Government, but it's not specific to a ban in Wales. We've tried looking at legislation, because we also get involved with puppy smuggling across the borders, with the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, where we take puppies that way. So, there are discussions always going on, but specifically, there are things we can also do to improve breeding and how they come into the country, and we're happy to have those conversations.

Okay, diolch. Alun, did you have any further questions?

I can certainly understand it. If you want to ban greyhound racing, you want to ban it immediately, and you don't want to wait more than 10 minutes after the ink has dried on the law. I can understand that point of view. But from a public policy point of view, I would have anticipated that if you're going to impose a ban on something, you would seek all the alternatives before you moved down to that, and it would appear to me that we haven't done that yet. We haven't put in place a regulation or a structure, a framework of effective regulation. You've identified some of the gaps in existing legislation, and certainly the English legislation is a partial answer to that. And it would appear to me that a more proportionate approach would be imposing regulation on the industry, on the racing community, and then the ban would be the consequence of that regulation not working. Why does that not—? Because that's what we do in every other part of life, including animal welfare, of course.

I think it's important to note in the Welsh Government's animal welfare plan that one of the underlying factors of it was that prevention is better than cure, and no matter what regulation you have, as GBGB's own figures show, you can never protect greyhounds from risk of injury and death. And for us as an organisation, it's those injuries and deaths: regulation cannot stop it; the industry's own figures show that, and the Welsh Government's own policy is that prevention is better than cure in animal welfare. So, I think it's really important to note that. And we can talk about breeding, we can talk about kennels, we can talk about transparency, but ultimately, it's about the number of dogs that are being injured and killed every single year as a consequence of racing.

Just to add to that, we haven't always tried licensing first in animal welfare matters. For example, we banned shock collars for dogs in 2015. We didn't license those before. We banned snares, we've banned glue traps, the use of both. We didn't license those before. So, actually, it isn't a completely brand-new approach when it comes to animal welfare.

Well, in terms of not seeking the regulation of an activity, I suspect it probably is, but let's leave it there.

And just to extend that, the evidence you're submitting is that greyhound racing is 'inherently dangerous'. That's the term that you use. So, to challenge the line of questioning, if something's inherently dangerous, then regulation can't mitigate that. Can you just talk us through a little bit the nature of the injuries that the dogs face, the sort of interventions that are required, and what the evidence is about the long-term impact of all of that?

I'm happy to answer that one. Generally speaking, without talking about individual injuries, it's better to talk about broad categories of what these injuries fall into. Greyhounds race at the Valley track, we estimate, at around 35 mph. They obviously experience collisions, as in where they collide with other dogs. They might run into track boundaries—there's a rail on the inside, there's a wall on the outside. Dogs might fall, and then they land either on the sand track or impact onto the track boundaries. So, those are the broad categories of traumatic injuries, and the injuries can then vary that the dogs sustain, from the milder ones, where it's so-called just abrasions, wounds, transient soft tissue injuries, but also more catastrophic limb injuries, fractures, joint injuries, polytrauma, as in where different areas of the body become injured and an animal might go into shock and require emergency treatment there.

We also then, obviously, have the other category of the stress injuries, and they arise from the very nature of greyhound racing, that is, running repeatedly around an oval track in a counterclockwise direction. There's extensive evidence in the literature that greyhounds tend to sustain very specific types of injuries. At the Valley track, back to the Amazing Greys data, when even I was present at the track, we did see a lot of hock fractures, where the greyhounds tend to break their right back leg, a certain specific bone, the central tarsal bone in the hock. That's a fracture that's commonly seen and reported in literature in the greyhounds. We've seen them at the Valley track, and this is not a type of injury that we would see very commonly at all in the pet dog population. When the comparison is made, dogs run on the beach, they can hurt themselves, yes, they do, but we don't see a lot of cockapoos with these same fractures. They don't run as fast, it's not repetitive, and also, obviously, we've got multiple dogs running in a very, very small space on a narrow track there.

Now, interestingly, the other category that probably should be mentioned from when we reviewed the data at the Valley track based on the withdrawals, reasons for withdrawals and reasons for retrials, and that's dog bites. Dogs had to be withdrawn from racing due to bite injuries. We have no evidence, or no published evidence, where these bites occur. Do they occur during the actual racing activity, or is it kennelling related? But there is obviously data there that suggests these incidents happen.

If I can move on to the kind of treatment that they need, obviously, the most important thing is always the veterinary first aid. That's why there are veterinary surgeons employed by the tracks, to be there at every race and every trial, to provide first aid. But that's only going to impact or limit the welfare compromise of the dog that's already injured. So, what can track vets do? They can provide first aid, pain relief. They can, for example, put a support bandage on. They can arrange transfer to a fully equipped veterinary practice for further investigation. Ultimately, if there are serious injuries where the transport of the dog to the nearest vets would potentially compromise the welfare even more, then I believe that euthanasia of the dog at the track is a welfare solution. It's not necessarily desirable, but we have to accept that if the injuries are severe, sometimes that might be the best option for the dog at that point in time.

Regarding the kind of work-up to diagnose injuries, obviously we referred to the Greyhound Board of Great Britain's racing reports of the injuries, but they're not necessarily—. They report race-day injuries, so we may not necessarily capture all of the injuries. So, if a dog had a more transient injury, it was initially running on adrenaline, it looked okay, it still might be stiff and sore the next day. It might then need to see its own vet. Are these all captured there? For the investigation of limb injuries where a dog is lame afterwards, they generally require some form of imaging to diagnose whether there's a fracture there or not, and also to determine the treatment plan. So, does this dog just need to be rested and allowed to recover? Is supporting the limb with a bandage for a longer period of time and just giving analgesia an appropriate course of action? So, we would base that decision on some form of diagnostic imaging, in the form of an x-ray. Or, is a surgical intervention required? Is it going to restore that limb to some level of function, so that the greyhound can then live a happy life? Alternatively, is it an injury that is so severe that, for example, an amputation, as a salvage procedure, should be considered to save the dog? But, obviously, if we can't save the limb, it's still going to be an option, as that allows some quality of life without necessarily being back to full fitness there.

Ultimately, it would then lead on to discussions about what long-term care these dogs need, because it's often represented as the dogs going for surgery, having a limb repaired, and that restores full function, but in reality, I think we all know after any kind of injury, whether you're a dog or a person, there can be long-term effects, especially after a joint injury. Dogs can develop osteoarthritis and they can then suffer chronic pain as a consequence of even a severe one-off injury, or just the accumulative effects of the little niggles that carry on that then need long-term care. And, ultimately, dogs then move on to living in somebody's home as a pet, but they still need a level of function, to be able to go for walks, to navigate steps and to get in the back of the car. They may not race around the track again, but they still need to have a comfortable musculoskeletal capacity to be able to live a pain-free life. I think that's the important discussion there that we can't lose sight of.

Perhaps I can ask Blue Cross in terms of rehoming some of these dogs, what's your experience and what is the evidence of the long-term behavioural or psychological impacts on the animals?

The pets themselves take us twice as long and they're twice as expensive to rehome because of those issues. So, they take far more veterinary input to make them ready for rehoming and, secondly, significantly more behavioural input because they haven't been socialised; they're in kennels all day and not in a home environment. And Sibylle will be able to probably talk far better than I can, but in essence, it means that the pets themselves, the greyhounds themselves do take more work and effort for us to rehome them than, say, a 'normal'—if I can use inverted commas—type of dog, which puts more pressure on us, both in terms of time, cost, et cetera. But I think the implementation group has demonstrated how, if we close the industry down here in Wales, we would home all the dogs if we had to, and take care of that capacity and make sure that we're able to rehome safely, which we've done before in other parts of the country.

Sibylle, did you want to add to that?

Just that, after rehoming, there is definitely published evidence in two broad areas. One is chronic pain impacting negatively on behaviour and ultimately on the bond between the person who's going to be looking after the dog, as in the adopter, and the dog itself. So, it can pose a significant financial burden on adopters as well if that dog is rehomed with a pre-existing musculoskeletal condition that the adopter then can't insure the dog for, for example. And I think the other category—and there is published evidence there as well—actually relates to preventing predatory behaviours then being exhibited in normal life, in everyday life with the dogs going for walks, the risk to other animals and the risk to members of public. So, greyhounds do need to be re-socialised before they can be rehomed; they need to be assessed for suitability. Often, that's what the evidence states as well, that environmental management is believed to be the most effective way to prevent predatory behaviour becoming a problem after rehoming. So, that is something that adopters need to be aware of, and I think it probably will limit who can safely adopt a greyhound and give them what they need. They are fantastic pets, but people need to be prepared to accept what, genetically, they were bred to exhibit and what they were trained to do during their racing career, their younger years.

Can I ask—? I understand that there was a report commissioned on greyhound welfare by the RSPCA, Dogs Trust and Blue Cross, which hasn't been published. Can you tell us why that is and anything more about it?

Yes, no problem. That was an internal policy review, so I think the key word there is 'internal'; it was never designed or destined to be made public. And, obviously, if we were to make a special case for this particular review, we'd be setting a precedent for ourselves—I mean, every single review that we undertake internally would then have to be published. That, obviously, would be significantly costly, it would take up a lot of resource and it's not something that we can actually commit to. And obviously—

Well, you are asking the law of the land to prohibit a currently legal activity. So, this isn't any casual internal review; there are significant consequences for people's rights, aren't there? 

Oh no, absolutely. Absolutely. 

So, why wouldn't you release that?

It was just never designed to be that way. Obviously, we undertook testimonials and when we pivoted the review to those people, it was, 'Oh, this is going to be internal.' So, yes, okay, you can obviously keep things confidential, but there was a risk in that respect— 

Are there parts of it you can publish, or can you anonymise it and publish it?

There is actually a summary that's publicly available. We have shared it previously. So, yes, if that would be of interest to the committee. It might be slightly outdated now, but it is something that we could share if that would be of interest.

We're trying to establish an evidence base, so that would be helpful.

Yes, of course.

Your colleague from the Dogs Trust is keen to come in.

James.

Thank you. I just wanted to come in from a Dogs Trust perspective, because I'm aware that the internal review was work that we undertook alongside the RSPCA. I think Billie's made a number of points there about it being part of a wider internal process. I think the key thing to really hammer home here is that, for a large organisation like ourselves, we regularly undertake internal reviews of all of our policy areas to make sure that we are focused, as a charity, on hitting our goals and missions of trying to help as many dogs as possible. They are internal reviews, and we never plan to publish or publicise them. On that side of things, that would be the reason.

But what we can say is that a lot of the stuff that we have already said within the evidence session this morning, a lot of the issues that we've spoken about, over our concerns around greyhound racing, is information that we got from that internal review. We do pride ourselves on using a robust evidence base. We firmly believe that the outcomes of that internal review were substantive and definitive. What we were left with was a choice: in order to safeguard the welfare of the animals involved in the industry, it did mean that our policy position would have to change, to call for a phased end to greyhound racing across the UK.

Can I ask specifically about the Valley stadium and any complaints you may have had and any inspections you may have carried out there?

Yes, because I've checked this with our chief inspector for south Wales. We have not inspected the Valley stadium. But I think the important thing to mention here is we don't have statutory enforcement powers as the RSPCA. So, even if we were to go to the stadium, for example, there is no guarantee that we would be provided access. The local authority would probably be the better place to inspect or receive complaints. I think it would be quite pertinent for the committee to perhaps check with Caerphilly County Borough Council, because they may have received complaints, they may have been into the stadium, and might be able to tell you more. From the RSPCA, no, we have not been into the stadium.

Chair, perhaps we can do that. I just want to finish here. Greyhound Rescue Wales has submitted evidence to the committee, which has not yet been published, but it's quite detailed, specifically about the Valley stadium and it is very compelling. Perhaps you could take this opportunity to put on the record now a summary, without identifying individuals, of the sort of data you've collected specifically about Valley stadium.

What we've largely done is we've looked at the dogs that race there and what sorts of incidents happened for the first year of racing. In the first year, commencing November 2023 through to the end of October 2024, there were 601 dogs that we identified that had raced or trialled at the Valley track. Of these, 322 dogs were listed under a Valley-attached trainer. These are trainers that routinely race at the Valley track. Most of these dogs pretty much exclusively race there. For the rest of the dogs, visiting trainers would come a few times. So, there's a difference between how many times a dog is raced. Valley-attached dogs race on average about 25 times. The visiting dogs on average about five times. Visiting trainers had come from a long way. A lot of these had come from across England and then travelled to the Valley track.

We then looked at incidents. We looked at what happened during the races—and that was based on the GBGB's own records, which is listed in the comments for each dog after a race—when dogs, for example, fell, and dogs couldn't complete their race with a recorded time. There were two categories. They either managed to reach the finish line after the timer stopped, or they didn't even reach the finish line. These incidents we then took apart. We counted them. There were 267 incidents altogether. We looked at the dogs that fell versus the dogs that couldn't finish the race for another reason. We also identified, in these adverse events or incidents, dogs that appeared to have finished their last race with a time, but were subsequently flagged either in withdrawal data or on the trial cards, and they basically returned after a period of lameness. Then, we basically looked at what the outcome was after these incidents. If the dog then didn't race, how long was the dog off from racing? Because racing is a commercial activity. Greyhounds are pretty much on performance-related pay. If they get put into a race, they earn an income already. So, it is in the trainer's and in the owner's interest that, if the dog's fit enough to race, they would race.

So, we looked at the stand-down time, which is the period of incapacitation or recovery for a greyhound when it's not fit to race, then we analysed what happened after falls, and we then grouped them and basically looked at how long the dogs are off for, for example, after falls. Often they were only off for a short period of time, up to 21 days, three weeks, but there was a small percentage of falls—7 per cent of them—that appeared to be career ending, where the dogs didn't return to race. When we looked at the dogs that didn't fall, but seemed to slow up, or, in race commentry, as is often commented on, the dogs faded or they checked and they just didn't reach finish time, out of those, there was a significantly higher number of career-ending events there. So, we believe, when we've previously talked about the stress of fatigue injuries, that that's probably the category that these dogs would fall into.

And then we also looked at the category of the lame dogs, that were identified lame, whether they were minor injuries, as in they were just off for a short period of time, but there we definitely seemed to capture quite a large of number of dogs that were off for 22 days or longer. So, they had a somewhat more serious injury, but it wasn't career ending. So, there were distinct patterns, based on the incidents, that these injuries tend to fall into.

We then also tried to calculate—. Because our big issue with the GBGB's own injury data is that it's all expressed in 'per runs'. Obviously, we know that the greyhounds at the Valley track race on average 25 times, and what we're really interested in, when we're looking at the dogs, is what is the actual incidence of something inadvertently happening to a dog. So, we worked out, for all dogs that raced at the Valley track, the 367 incidents equated to 44 per cent annual incidence of they are involved in an adverse event. And when we literally looked at all the incidents that happened in the Valley-attached dogs, just in their Valley-attached runs, which is 85 per cent of all the runs, suddenly the incidence of that they are involved in an annual adverse event increased to 74 per cent. Now, the 74 per cent, that is not 74 per cent of dogs, because we certainly had multiple dogs in different injury categories that appear to have experienced an adverse event on several occasions during just that one year.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Gareth wants to come in. 

Yes. I just want to pull it back slightly to the Valley stadium, because I'm sensing a slight imbalance of evidence. Because, when we last had a conversation as a committee a fortnight ago with the Cabinet Secretary, what we found was that there was no data on the attendances of people going to the Valley stadium to watch greyhound racing. And I've always been of the belief that your attendance figures are the foundation for everything, really. Every football match, for example, or rugby match, or whatever it is, will always publish the attendances, because that's your foundation for how well you're doing economically—how many people have paid at the gates, how many people may have betted on a game or a race as such. But when we haven't got those foundational figures there to calculate what the economic impact would potentially be of the Valley stadium closing as a result of a ban, how could we ever tangibly calculate that? Because, to me, recording attendance is very simple: you stick someone on the gate with a ticker, or whatever it is, or even a machine that can do it. So, in terms of basing the comments and what you say, if we haven't got those foundational figures in front of us, how can we be informed enough to make a qualified decision on what we're embarking on as a Senedd, really?

I think the Valley stadium itself would probably be the best to ask about their own attendance figures, if that makes sense. I'm sure they will be, but—

I think it was their figures, actually, that they don't record them, because that was Government data, if my memory's correct. But I think that's what we heard, that there are no numbers that we can actively calculate how many people attend and—. Sorry.

Forgive me. Just to clarify, I don't think that we have that information yet. I don’t think it's that they’ve provided the figures. I think we’re waiting for the information.

Okay.

If I may—

Forgive me—the implementation group has been asked for the figures. So, it isn't the stadium specifically, it's the implementation group that have been asked for the figures.

Okay, apologies in that regard. But, on that point, though, just on those foundational figures, what are we calculating this upon if we don't have a record as it stands as to how many people are attending and what the potential impact is?

I think also it’s worth mentioning that the value in commercial racing isn't people coming through the door; it's the value of the racing contracts, the live-streaming contracts that they've got so those races can be put into betting shops. When I attended, when it wasn't regulated racing, there were very small attendances. It was mainly trainers, owners, friends, family; there was very little of what I would class as punters coming through the doors. You can watch some of the live-streamed races and you can look at the crowds or lack of crowds there, so you can get some sense of how many people attend. But, like I've said, the value in commercial racing isn't people coming through the door; it is those high-value contracts for live-streaming races.

And do we know if there are any figures on those at all?

I'm not sure I can say, as part of the implementation group, but as far as I'm aware we haven't received those figures from the industry yet. They have been asked for. But I might be wrong, because they wouldn't come directly to us. 

We can check that. 

That's for the industry to provide.

So, that—. Yes.

There was a report by Deloitte that looked into it, but it’s, I think, 10 years old. But they set out how much of it was betting industry related income, and it was something like 80 or 90 per cent of the income of the industry, and it's totally reliant on that now.

And GBGB also have a report that says where, essentially, the money is coming from and where the employment is, and that report in itself shows that the number from Wales is very, very small, obviously. That’s stating the obvious—there’s only one track versus 18—but, yes, just to emphasise that, there is a report by GBGB that perhaps would be of interest.

Thank you. Thank you for that.

Just a few questions—you've covered a number of things I wanted to ask just generally about the scope of the ban. Just to get the picture of, I suppose, the breadth of the legislation and the breadth of the issues around the welfare of the dogs, you've mentioned already that, of course, the majority of dogs are being imported from Ireland. Others, I presume, come from Wales and from England, and possibly other places. What is the—? If you could give, perhaps, a description of the life of a greyhound from birth to racing to post racing, what is the sort of normal life picture of a dog?

Vanessa.

As we've said, many are bred in Ireland; I previously said 84 per cent of those new registrations will come from there. Ireland doesn't have as good breeding regulations as we do here, so that is a concern. There's a lot of use of artificial insemination, for example. You've got the issue then of wastage, as we've mentioned, and greyhounds that don't make the grade. In 2019 there was an RTÉ documentary that showed that 6,000 were killed every year, and the industry is breeding 1,000 more puppies than it needs each year, which is a huge concern.

Just to stop you at that moment, so you have a litter of dogs, dogs are selected, taken for training for racing. Presumably there’s a selection process, which I don't understand. Those that don't match up are destroyed. Is that what happens to them?

The documentary referred back to an actual industry report that was done, I believe, in 2017, and that was where it was revealed that, yes, 6,000 were killed each year that didn't make the grade. Looking at the Irish Coursing Club and GBGB's figures as well for data from 2017 to 2021, that would suggest that around 10 per cent to 20 per cent of both Irish- and British-bred greyhounds can't be accounted for. This is the problem. There isn't that transparency that we can say with certainty what happens, because we don't have that life-tracking of greyhounds from the moment they're born to when they're microchipped to when they're tattooed to when they race. That just doesn't exist. 

If I could just stop you there, then, so the dogs then are—. I presume they go through a training programme before they're ready to go to the proper racing track. Is that right? 

Yes, they'd be trained and scored. They would have to have a number of trials to see how fit they are for racing, whatever track they're going to. So, there's quite a process before they get to race for their first race.

And then that process then will filter out a certain number of dogs, and what happens to the dogs that don't make it through there?

All we can say is that they're unaccounted for, and just refer back to that RTÉ expose based on the internal report in Ireland that did say that they were killed.

Mick, just before you come back, I think Llyr wants to come in.

So, all of this was in Ireland. 

This was in Ireland, but bear in mind that 84 per cent are born there, so—. Yes. But it would be the same process in terms of assessing which dogs are fit for racing, but we don't have those figures. We don't have that transparency.

So, we have the figures for Ireland, but we don't have the figures for here. 

We don't have them, no. 

Okay, thank you. 

Mick, back to you. 

But a certain number of these dogs are trained in England. Where will they train?

They're trained at the trainers' kennels, so they'll have facilities for training there.

At what age are they then ready to go into formal racing?

I think it's around 15 months. 

I can jump in on that, because obviously I've looked at the Irish data for all the dogs that we've got in our database. So, generally, we've got different groups of dogs. We've got dogs that are on the Irish system and they have no trials registered at all; they seem to be sold over to the UK, and then start to trial for the first time at UK tracks. A couple of trials—it's usually three, sometimes six or seven, in that sort of range—and then their racing records start. Or we have some dogs in our database that just trialled at the Valley track, and then they never raced. But, once they've trialled, we know their racing name, and we're tracking whether they then potentially appear among the surrendered dogs later on.

The other group of dogs we've got are Irish dogs that trialled a few times in Ireland and then raced a few times over in Ireland as well. So, whether or not these are dogs that were destined to race—they try them first, see if they make the grade, and then they get sold over to the Valley track—or if they're dogs that Irish trainers feel that don't make the grade for them, so the next sensible economic solution would be to try and sell them to somebody who would be able to have some commercial benefit—. And that's interesting, because, in the recent population of dogs that have recently been added to the Valley track, we seem to have quite a few dogs that have a longer Irish racing history. So, these are dogs that are a little bit older; they might already be two or three years old. So, whether or not these are at the end of their Irish racing career and then get moved to the Valley track for a different reason—. The reason why these dogs move, where they move, we don't know. All we can track is what the behaviour is, how many times they raced in Ireland, and then they stop and then the UK racing history starts, how long a gap there was. All we can try and do with the available data now is track what the behaviour is to identify different groups.

How many tracks are there in Ireland?

I don't know how many.

Presumably quite a number, then. It's still a fairly vibrant sport. There were a lot of tracks in the UK; now we're now down to hardly any, and only the one in Wales. If the track in Wales goes, of course, if there's a ban, presumably, all these dogs will just race in Ireland.

Or other tracks in England as well.

Yes. All right—

Sorry. It's important to know that the dogs are bred for a specific economic purpose. So, if that economic purpose no longer exists, then are these dogs that are being bred, that cost money to breed and raise—? If they can't be sold, because the track buyer that would have needed them no longer exists, eventually, the commercial dynamics should shift and we'd see less breeding for the UK market, or certainly for the Welsh market.

Yes. This is mainly an industry that's not so much a sport but more a gambling facility, isn't it?

Yes. It's a commercial activity.

Okay. Just to take it on then, for how long will they race? To what age will they normally race?

The average age that we worked out, based on the dogs that have already come off the Valley track, is three years and four months.

Okay. Then, after that, what do we know about the situation after that, once they've finished? Some may have had injuries, some may have not survived. We've heard all the evidence on that. I'm just looking at the welfare scope, just in terms of how broad the legislation is. Then, afterwards, what do we know happens to them once they've finished their racing career?

As mentioned, the greyhound racing industry puts an inordinate amount of pressure on the animal welfare sector, with that continual cycle of breeding, racing and replacing surplus dogs. So, in 2024, 5,795 dogs left the racing industry, 55.7 per cent of which were handed to homing organisations. Now, at the moment, that isn't sustainable. We're in crisis due to the impact of the high spike in pet ownership during lockdown and the subsequent cost-of-living crisis. So, most of them—55.7 per cent—will go to rescues, but, at the moment, there is a real issue—

And the remainder?

Well, at the moment, what's happening is quite a lot of dogs are being kept in trainers' kennels because there aren't rescue spaces for them because of that crisis. That's a concern. Bear in mind that there is no right of entry, no statutory regulation of kennelling. We don't know the standards that those dogs are being kept in, and that is a real concern.

We've got specific problems with Valley track. You might be interested to know that, at Valley, there has been an issue where they were keeping dogs in very tiny pre-race kennels. So, at Valley track, they've got residential kennels, and then they've got tiny pre-race kennels. During the planning application process, there were concerns submitted by Caerphilly County Borough Council that those kennels were too small. Their expert vet also submitted evidence about that. So, that was an issue. But what they're doing is, because they are so full in the kennels with dogs waiting for homes, and they need to replace those dogs to keep that turnover, they were actually keeping dogs in those very tiny kennels. So, they've been disciplined twice, the track, by GBGB for that. So, I think that shows that there is a problem with kennel capacity. And, again, the local authority—

Is there an issue of destruction of dogs? Are dogs destroyed?

We can't see the data really to know how many have been destroyed for lack of a home. There are figures presented, but—

So, GBGB statistics from last year show that 51 dogs were designated unsuitable for rehoming and were therefore euthanised. This was actually the second year in a row that the number of dogs that were euthanised for this reason actually increased.

What do we know about the state of the dogs post racing? You will know from the ones that are given over to you, really, I suppose, to look for homes for, and so on. What is the general information we have about their condition?

Do you want to take that one, Sibylle?

We certainly have concerns about injuries, access to veterinary records, what sort of treatment these dogs have had. There are concerns about dogs that have come off the Valley track with parasites, that were underweight, and were basically not in what we would consider a good condition.

Okay. One of the—. A broad issue. It sounds a pretty grim life for these dogs, and there's a lot of uncertainty as to what happens. Presumably, Caerphilly may well have information that is of interest to us with regard to the conditions that dogs are kept in, and so on. So, maybe that's something we need to explore. So, we don't really have a great deal of information about the kennel environment, or really much information about the conditions at the Valley stadium, or certainly with the dogs that have reached past their racing.

The legislation, generally, in terms of the breadth of its scope and its focus on the broader welfare issues of these dogs, do you have any concerns about this legislation and the extent to which it actually accommodates these broader welfare issues of these racing dogs?

So, we are satisfied that this particular Bill can achieve what it sets out to and what we have campaigned for, which is an end to greyhound racing in Wales. But then you're right, Mick, that, obviously, there's a lot more to dogs' lives outside of that as well. So, obviously, in Wales, we have the Animal Welfare (Breeding of Dogs) (Wales) Regulations 2014. So, these would cover dogs being bred and bred from. We are calling for these to be reviewed and updated, not just for greyhounds, but for all dogs, just to bring them up to standard so that they can better protect dog welfare. So, obviously, for breeding in this country, that they'd be covered there.

All racing greyhounds are actually covered by the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which places a legal onus on their keepers to meet the welfare needs of their animals—so, this is throughout their lives. And the ways in which these dogs are kept and the risks that they're exposed to do make them different to other animals covered by that particular piece of legislation, such as companion animals, but it does still place a legal onus on their owners to care for them and meet their needs.

As we've covered, more than half of the dogs that leave the industry currently go to rescue centres, and we are calling for these establishments to be regulated—again, not just for racing greyhound purposes, but for all animals. This is something that the current Welsh Government has said that they will look into and that the development of proposals will be forthcoming, and we very much want that work to be prioritised and progressed. Because there's other legislation in place, basically, that covers the dogs on the other side of their lives outside of racing, if we make sure that those pieces of legislation are there and that they are robust and enforced correctly, then what we will have is legislation covering dogs throughout their lives. But what this Bill is to achieve is to remove the risks, the welfare risks, the injuries, deaths, to dogs while they are racing, which is inherently dangerous.

Okay. Thank you. Chair, I think that probably answers the questions I wanted to ask.

Okay. Diolch, Mick. We have just over eight minutes left. I'm going to go to Gareth for the final questions.

Thank you, Chair. You've answered many of the questions. I think it's been quite a general session, really. But I just wanted to mop up, if you like, just to talk about what assessment has been made of potential cultural ramifications of a greyhound ban. Whereas it's sort of like—. It seems since, probably, the 1980s, we've been on a bit of a downward trajectory naturally of greyhound racing as a nation, really; it's probably why we've only got one greyhound track in Wales. But I'm just wondering if there are any cultural remarks to make in terms of what it would mean for people who have seen greyhound racing, maybe in the bookies, on the front cover of Blur's Parklife album, one of the biggest selling albums of the 1990s. And I jest, slightly, in saying that, but the serious point to make is that they are still within our cultural package, if you like. I was browsing through Primark the other week, for example, and Blur's Parklife album is on the back of a T-shirt. So, the general expectation from people is that they would see those things organically within society to reflect what they've seen on an album cover or something. So, has there been any assessment of those impacts? You know, they could be non-related, but they could be, in other senses, to what the public generally expect of society if—. Wider cultures have embraced things like greyhound racing in previous years, and then it doesn't live up to what the public's general expectation would be of that.

Vanessa.

I think you have to realise that, at one point, dog fighting was legal, bull fighting was legal, there's a lot of cultural things that impact on animal welfare that, as a society, we used to give a social licence to operate. We don't have that any more for those types of sports and activities, and I think this is where we are with greyhound racing now. It's important that you shouldn't put culture above animal welfare, if there are serious animal welfare concerns.

That's not the point I'm making, but it's more of an assessment in regard to animal welfare as to how the two can—

I think as animal welfare organisations, though, that's our prime concern. We wouldn't be looking at culture; that is for the implementation group to do.

And if it would be of interest, Gareth, we submitted some written evidence from the RSPCA. We've undertaken polling as to what the Welsh public's perspective is on the cultural element, and that found that very few people consider greyhound racing to be important to Welsh culture. It was 26 per cent, I believe, of people who did, showing that the vast majority don't, and that only around 5 per cent of people actually either participate in or have betted on greyhound racing in Wales. So, I think that, in itself, gives an indication of where the public is at on this. Even over the course of a decade—I believe, in 2010, there were 2 million people watching greyhound racing in the UK, but that then, in a decade, reduced to 800,000. So, you know, that, in itself, kind of—

No, I only asked those questions because, you know, we are a culture committee and—

Absolutely. Absolutely. Yes, no; absolutely.

—that's our primary focus, to look at, you know, the impacts of—

Yes. And, obviously, there will still be greyhounds. As Sibylle touched upon, greyhounds can make wonderful pets. Many people are very loyal to the breed. So, the end of racing is not the end of greyhounds by any means. So, they will still be there and, you know, can still be put on T-shirts and dresses, like the one I'm wearing today. [Laughter.]

And I was just going to add something very quickly. As part of Greyhound Rescue Wales, their members, in a membership organisation, had a vote. The motion was put forward whether or not the ban on greyhound racing should be supported by Greyhound Rescue Wales, and there was overwhelming support. These are members that are largely adopters, they are caring for dogs that have previously raced and they are very strong advocates for the breed, and based on their poll, it was overwhelming to decide to go for a ban.

Yes.

Okay. Right. In that case, we have come to the end of our questions.

Thank you so much.