National Assembly for Wales

Hi, everybody. I'm a veterinary surgeon. I worked in small-animal clinical practice, treating dogs and cats, including many greyhounds, actually, for nearly a decade before going into academia. For the last 10 years, I've been mostly in academia. I'm affiliated with three universities, including a veterinary school in Australia and the University of Winchester in the United Kingdom. I'm a veterinary specialist in animal welfare, a professor of animal welfare, and I published a key report in 2018 on injuries in racing greyhounds, which I think is probably why I've been asked to speak today.

Thank you for joining us today. Dr Wigham.

Hi, good morning, my name is Dr Ellie Wigham. I'm here on behalf of the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission, and we are a group of individuals who inform Scottish Ministers on matters relating to animal welfare in Scotland. In April 2022 we were approached to provide evidence to the Scottish Ministers on greyhound racing in Scotland, and we published a report, which is publicly available, in March 2023. I was part of that group that put together that report.

Thank you very much, and welcome to you as well. Dr Humphreys.

Hi, my name is Dr Rebekah Humphreys. I'm a senior lecturer in philosophy at the University of Wales Trinity Saint David in Carmarthen. I'm a specialist in animal ethics and environmental ethics, and I serve on a number of ethics committees at the university and outside the university.

Thank you. Dr Blackwell.

Hi, I'm Dr Emily Blackwell, and I'm a senior lecturer in companion animal behaviour and welfare at Bristol Veterinary School. I'm also chair of the implementation group.

I think this kind of legislation is long overdue. There's an international trend towards banning greyhound racing; it is on the decline internationally. There are multiple concerns. There's obviously the risks of severe injuries and deaths that I've gone into in some detail in my report a few years ago, but it actually is broader than that as well. There's also significant concern about the conditions in which greyhounds are kept and raised—the kennelling and husbandry standards, and the socialisation opportunities, or lack thereof, which mean that they don't experience the normal opportunities to mix with other dogs and people that normal household pets undergo. As a result, they don't learn the normal social behaviours of other dogs. This results in a lot of actual behavioural problems, which are a significant cause of trackside euthanasia, because of behavioural problems at the tracks. About three quarters of the deaths at racing tracks are because of catastrophic injuries of the pelvic and the thoracic limbs—so, basically, the feet, the ankles and the leg bones—but a lot of the remainder are, actually, behavioural problems caused by this lack of appropriate socialisation in kennels.

There are deficient diets. As a veterinarian in practice, I saw that so many of these dogs are, invariably, very gentle-natured, lovely dogs, but they always had very bad teeth, unfortunately, because of years of being maintained on very poor diets in the kennels. So, there are concerns about the actual kennel conditions and there are also concerns about the breeding bitches from whom these dogs are sourced in the first place. There are some concerns about the ages at which they're being bred—sometimes too young, sometimes too old and sometimes too often—and then there are concerns about the wastage of dogs that are not considered to be running fast enough to be competitive or to be commercially viable as racers. It's thought that thousands of those disappear each year across the United Kingdom, and there's a lack of transparency about where they go and traceability. So, actually, the major concerns, of course, are about the thousands of greyhounds that are injured across the UK every year and the hundreds that are killed. And within the Valley stadium track there has been a lack of transparency about exactly what the numbers are, but it's thought that, nevertheless, something like around about 20 or so are dying each year and up to 100 or more being seriously injured each year. So, that's the obvious primary concern, but it's broader than that. There are substantial additional concerns surrounding husbandry, kennelling, transportation if they have to travel to distant races, and the conditions in which the breeding bitches are also being kept, and then the loss of so many greyhounds that seem to be disappearing if they're not racing fast enough.

So, from an animal welfare perspective, and from an ethical perspective, this sort of sport is increasingly seen as being inconsistent with social values internationally about how we ought to view dogs and how we ought to be treating dogs, and accordingly, this is being phased out of countries around the world. Wales and the other UK nations are a small group within only about a half a dozen internationally that are still practising greyhound racing, of which several others are bringing in legislation to ban greyhound racing at the moment. So, I'm grateful that this is being considered. I think it's well overdue from an animal welfare perspective.

Thank you, Professor Knight. Would any other witnesses—? Dr Wigham.

Yes, thank you very much. So, as part of our SAWC report we highlighted that there's a distinct lack of evidence around greyhound racing, and that which is available is mostly focused on the welfare of greyhounds on the racetrack itself, which is a relatively small proportion of what these dogs are spending their time doing. So, there's very, very little evidence in terms of what happens during training and during kennelling, and also where these dogs are coming from. In our report, which was based in Scotland, we found that the vast majority of these dogs are coming over from Ireland, where they are bred and transported across, for which there is little if any information regarding where these dogs are coming from and the breeding practices. As part of that report as well that we published we did a brief ethical analysis and the conclusions were that, on balance, the welfare of these greyhounds would be improved if they were not involved in racing.

A lot of our work was focused on the one track that we have in Scotland, which is independent of the Greyhound Board of Great Britain, which has its own issues. For example, one of our main recommendations was to ensure that there was a veterinarian on the premises at the racetrack at all times, because that wasn't required under our current regulations in Scotland. But we went a little bit further on from that to say that we recommend that no new further greyhound tracks are permitted in Scotland, primarily to protect the welfare of those dogs. We weren't convinced that the current proposed measures that were outlined by GBGB at the time would appropriately protect the welfare of these animals. Thank you.

Thank you. Dr Humphreys or Dr Blackwell, would you like to come in? Dr Blackwell.

I was muted, sorry. I don't have anything to add in terms of the facts and figures. I think that Professor Knight has given a nice overview of the concerns and Dr Wigham has explained the ethical considerations. As an animal welfare scientist, based on the evidence available, I would say that a ban is warranted on animal welfare grounds.

Thank you. Dr Humphreys.

I agree with what's been said by Professor Knight, Dr Wigham and Dr Blackwell. 

Great, thank you very much. Can I ask, therefore, do you have any views on the proposal to ban greyhound racing rather than introducing Government regulation in the first instance? Dr Humphreys.

I don't think regulation will be justified in light of the ethical grounds just mentioned. Dogs would still be bred for the purpose of sport, with dogs ending up being culled between birth and registration, and some shortly after birth, and those on the track as well. So, those dogs that would be deemed wastage of the industry would still be culled, and assuming, through regulation, that those dogs would be allowed to live, then there would be a huge surplus of dogs, and this puts immense pressure on animal charities who are already experiencing extreme pressure from non-greyhound racing dogs. And I think the commodification aspect of greyhound racing and the commodification of dogs is problematic in itself, and regulation doesn't overcome that concern. So, I don't think there's a possibility of accounting for the welfare of the dogs at every stage of the dog's life via regulation.

Particularly with regard to what Professor Knight said in relation to the fact that many of these animals are invisible, to a certain extent—they're not seen and racing is primarily now an online sport; participants or spectators watch online. This makes the whole practice of greyhound racing removed, to a large extent, from public view, and that commodification aspect is something that can't be monitored in that sense.  

Thank you, Dr Humphreys. Would anyone like to add to that? Professor Knight. 

There have been various standards and codes and attempts to issue guidelines by various greyhound racing authorities around the world for many years, with the objective of trying to bring down the injury and death rates and improve the welfare of those animals. As an example within the United Kingdom, at licensed tracks there needs to be a veterinarian inspecting the greyhounds that are due to race. But, actually, what that means in practice is that, yes, there's a veterinarian, but, on average, they have as little as 30 seconds to examine multiple bodily systems of a large number of dogs, a certain proportion of which will die on the track from so-called sudden death, so cardiovascular incidents that are not able to be detected in such a brief cursory examination, among the many lesser musculoskeletal injuries that are predisposed to those catastrophic fractures. 

So, yes, there's regulation within this particular area, for example, but it's not actually adequate in practice. It also doesn't mean that there's appropriate trackside facilities and medications to treat those animals that have been seriously injured. So, these have existed in various forms for many years. One would have hoped that the result would have been a reduction in injuries and deaths—a substantial reduction. I think in recent years, we've actually seen an increase across the UK, sadly, from average deaths of roughly 200 a year in the last five years, it seems to have gone up to about 350 in the most recent year. And the injury rates also seem to be increasing. So, sadly, I don't think that that's effective enough. This has been tried in various forms. There hasn't been a reduction; in fact, there's even been an increase in recent years.

As has just been pointed out, this also would not deal with the far greater number of dogs that actually don't make it to the track that are born, deemed insufficiently competitive to be profitable in this industry and then actually disappear, many of them. So, I don't think that that is likely to be sufficient, and I think it's been shown to be insufficient based on the experience so far. 

Thank you. Dr Wigham and Dr Blackwell, do you wish to add anything? Dr Wigham. 

Yes, thank you very much. We outlined in our report that our preference for regulation would have to be independent of what currently is available for greyhounds, which is the GBGB. We did outline that there could be potential for regulation to improve some of the significant welfare risks that are associated with greyhound racing, such as traceability and some of the injuries on track. But this would require a joined-up approach across countries, as well as really radical changes in track design. So, moving away from potentially the oval tracks, which all the stadia currently have in the UK, to potentially more of a straight design.

However, this would really require quite a radical change within the industry, and during SAWC's evidence gathering procedure, we didn't feel that that was being taken forward by the industry itself. So, we concluded that this regulation would not make the changes that would be required in order to mitigate the welfare risks that have been previously described. Thank you.

Thank you. Do you have anything to add, Dr Blackwell? No. We'll move on to questions from Lee Waters.

Thank you. What do you make of the arguments that greyhounds are working dogs, they were bred to be working dogs? There are other working dogs, there are dogs, typically, on farms, so what's the evidential justification for singling out greyhounds for special treatment? Professor Knight, do you want to take that first?

Yes. There are indeed working dogs in many other areas, but they don't normally undergo what greyhounds undergo. The obvious thing that comes to my mind as a veterinarian is that working dogs would normally receive a full suite of vaccinations, parasite control, appropriate socialisation when they're being reared, with a view to safeguarding their physical, behavioural and mental welfare. Greyhounds very often don't receive all those welfare safeguards, which predisposes them to medical problems and also behavioural problems, which, as I've mentioned, is actually a significant cause of euthanasia because of aggression-related incidents on tracks.

Secondarily—and I think this is a bigger issue—we're then asking these dogs to engage in running at very high speeds around, usually, curved tracks, resulting in thousands of injuries and deaths, which are avoidable. This isn't being done to help people who are deaf or blind or to operate as police dogs or rescue dogs. This isn't for some important social function to help people; it's to support an entertainment industry.

I think the injuries and deaths are occurring at a much higher level than for other working dogs. The lack of basic care and husbandry and socialisation is much more prevalent and results in greater problems, leading to euthanasia, in some cases. The justification is not there, whereas it is much more so for other working dogs that have more useful social functions. Obviously entertainment is important, and this is an industry that some people derive employment from, but it doesn't have the wide-ranging social benefits that things like seeing dogs for the blind and hearing dogs for deaf people offer to society. So, I think there are reasons to focus on this particular industry.

That's a value judgment, though, wouldn't you accept?

I think that most people would agree that providing services such as supporting people who are sight impaired or hearing impaired is more important than providing entertainment.

That's a value judgment.

It is a valid judgment. I think it would be shared by most people within modern democratic societies internationally, let alone in Wales.

On your point on the absence of welfare checks, if better welfare checks were available, does that mean that it would be more tolerable to continue with this?

It would be slightly better, but as I've pointed out, if there were better veterinary inspections, for example, a longer time period to inspect dogs, and better facilities trackside, yes, this would have an impact. But there's a large proportion of these catastrophic injuries that are occurring because of subtle underlying muscle strains and due to training issues, which would not be detected. The sudden deaths that occur, because of cardiovascular problems for a significant portion of dogs at trackside, would not be detected, most probably, in those brief inspections. And there are many thousands of animals that are being initially bred but don't make it through to the tracks that would not be examined—they're effectively invisible. There's a lack of traceability for those animals. Many of them are coming from Ireland, and we don't really know very much about exactly where they're coming from and where they're going—they seem to disappear. So, yes, it would help, but I don't believe it would make a big difference, and I think a big difference is warranted, actually.

You said there's no traceability and, in fact, Dr Wigham said there's very little research about these animals before they turn up at the track. You also said that many of the dogs don't have vaccinations. How do you know that if there's no traceability?

I didn't say there's no traceability, I said there's a lack of—. So, there's less. I mean, we certainly know where some of the dogs come from and, likewise, some of them do receive vaccinations. There are differing standards among kennels. But I've been involved in looking at this field for many years, and I've seen various reports over the years from inspections of kennels within the UK, and these are the concerns. It's frequently the case that the diets are very poor. I would see this as a veterinarian in practice, from when I treated dogs and cats for nearly a decade. Routinely, we would see these greyhounds come in, they were ex-racing greyhounds that had been adopted out, and they were coming in with terrible teeth because of poor diets; they would have a lack of a prior vaccination history; they'd have a lack of adequate previous parasite control, such as wormers and things like that. This is indicated by repeated investigations of these kennels over the years, conducted from various sources, including the charities, and it's also something that I've seen, with respect to at least the teeth, and also looking at the prior vaccination histories of many of the animals that I treated as a vet in practice.

In principle, couldn't those issues be addressed through regulation or some other means? A ban through law is a punitive measure. Can we be satisfied that using the weight of the law in this way is proportionate to those risks, and could they not be addressed in other ways?

You could require that all of these dogs in kennels are vaccinated, and are all given appropriate parasite treatment, and are given a better standard of diet. You could require that the kennels are not in a state of disrepair. The photographs and reports that I've seen talk about facilities in which there are sharp protruding edges, very poor hygiene, a lack of lighting. That all theoretically could be addressed. It would incur substantial additional costs, which is why it's not currently universally being applied, which would be an implication for the industry, but it wouldn't take care of this other big issue.

he greyhounds that actually turn up in kennels and race at tracks are a bit like the tip of the iceberg. There's this much bigger group of greyhounds, which are the original breeding bitches, sometimes in countries such as Ireland, and the many greyhounds that are being initially produced but are not considered to be physically appropriate, racing fast enough to make it through as racers. If this industry was allowed to continue, we could try to regulate what occurs within the kennels, for example, in Wales, but it wouldn't take care of this much larger group of breeding greyhounds and initially-bred greyhounds from whom the racing greyhounds are actually being sourced. So, it would help, but I don't think it would help enough.

Thank you. Can I just test that with Dr Wigham finally? Just on the idea of the full life of the greyhound and your testimony earlier about the lack of robust evidence. On what basis can we say with confidence that the evidence of the full life cycle of the greyhound justifies a ban?

It was difficult when we did our research. That was back in 2022 and 2023. There may have been more evidence produced in the meantime that we're not aware of. But as part of our evidence-gathering initiative, we did a thorough literature review of the scientific published literature. There was, as I've already said, very limited published scientific evidence of the risks involved with the wider life cycle of the greyhound.

Also as part of our evidence gathering during our SAWC report, we interviewed stakeholders, both those who are pro greyhound racing and those who are against greyhound racing, to try and get a wider overview of what goes on. So, with very limited evidence, it would be good for us to get more evidence, but I think at this stage, that's going to be very, very difficult, especially in terms of getting things that can be published in a scientific way, which is the way that SAWC works. We go for our scientific evidence, but that was exceptionally limited, in our experience, over the last couple of years.

Is there anybody else who would like to respond to any of that before I hand back? No. In which case, Chair, I'm done with my questions. Thank you.

Diolch yn fawr. I just want to ask about some of the Bill's provisions. One question that's been asked of most of the panels that we've spoken with is whether you believe a definition of what a greyhound is is required in the Bill. Or do you believe that the breed's characteristics are sufficient that the Government doesn't need to do that? It's a straightforward one, really. Dr Humphreys.

I do have a concern that, because there is no definition of 'greyhound', it could potentially lead to other sighthounds being used as a replacement for greyhounds. I don't know what the other academics' views are on this, but ambiguity regarding what a greyhound could be, potentially with crossbreeds being used, I think is a problem. But I'd be interested to know what the other academics think about this. 

As would I. Go on then, who's going to go first? Professor Knight. 

Greyhound racing around the world is almost entirely greyhounds, but not exclusively. There is, occasionally, actually, the use of the other sighthounds, such as whippets and salukis. So, just speaking about greyhounds does leave the door open—even if it's not currently occurring—to the use of some of these other dogs. I think it would be beneficial to have a broader definition, effectively a ban on dogs that are racing, acknowledging that this will normally be greyhounds but it should not be limited to greyhounds.

That would then capture terrier racing in agricultural shows, if they are running around a track in pursuit of a lure or a lure activated by mechanical means. 

Perhaps we should talk about sighthounds, and potential crossbreeds with sighthounds. 

Okay. So, greater clarity. Dr Humphreys. 

I'm in agreement—some kind of definition around sighthounds and crossbreed sighthounds. 

Yes, okay. Because otherwise, where do you draw the line? Yes, okay, fine. Thanks for that.

I touched on the definition of greyhound racing. I'm just wondering whether you have a view on this in the Bill. As it stands, it defines greyhound racing as

'setting greyhounds to run around a track in pursuit of a lure activated by mechanical means'. 

I presume that the fact that they use the term 'around a track' limits it to oval and circular tracks only. I previously raised the prospect of maybe racing in straight lines, which would not be banned under this definition, mindful of the fact, of course, that much of the injuries happen because of the circular nature of the racing. I don't know whether you'd be more forgiving of straight-line racing. Professor Knight first, and we'll come to Dr Humphreys then.

Straight-line racing would certainly have a significant beneficial impact, but it would not fully eliminate, and I don't think it would adequately eliminate, the animal welfare concerns associated with greyhound racing. Perhaps the definition could be changed to 'around or along a track'. That would cover both. There are substantial concerns that would remain, unfortunately. 

It is true that the bends on these tracks create areas of congestion when the greyhounds are cornering, which is the major risk for catastrophic and fatal injuries that occur, but a significant proportion still occur not in the bends. There are other causes of problems as well, and, as I've said, the ones that actually reach the track are a little bit like the tip of the iceberg; there are all the other ones that are still being affected by this industry. So, it would certainly help. 

I think the industry has been resistant to doing this because of the major infrastructure changes that would be required to change from round to straight tracks, even though it's the biggest single thing that would benefit the welfare of these greyhounds. This doesn't seem to have occurred anywhere within the United Kingdom that I'm aware of. But it is possible that that could occur. So, yes, 'around or along a track' would, perhaps, be better wording. 

I'm in agreement with adding something to account for straight tracks, because, of course, the ethical grounds for the Bill don't relate just to greyhounds in respect of running around the little bits where there are bends. It relates to the whole practice and the whole industry. So, I would be in favour of extending the Bill, changing the wording slightly so that it includes straight tracks. 

Thank you. And what about the offences under section 1 of the Bill? Because, obviously, this Bill is specifically targeting those who operate stadiums or organise runs, as opposed to maybe those who participate, necessarily. Do you have any particular views, or do you believe that's the right approach, or not—no strong views? Dr Wigham.

Yes. Thank you very much. So, I don't have particularly strong views on that in general, but something that we did write in our report was that in Scotland, for example, if greyhound racing was to be banned, there is a risk of those who are owning greyhounds and who still want to race their greyhounds transporting them for longer distances to go and participate in races in the north of England, for example. That is something that you may have considered already. Thank you.

Yes, okay. Yes, well, the whole issue of dogs still being trained in Wales, potentially, and raced elsewhere is one that's been highlighted previously.

Okay, what about the penalty, then? There's an unlimited fine, which differs. There are options, aren't there, in terms of imprisonment et cetera, but it's an unlimited fine. Do you believe that's sufficiently robust and strong as a penalty—no particular views? No, okay.

The other one that's come up, of course, is that there's a specific timescale, isn't there, for introducing a ban, potentially. There's a three-year window between April 2027 and April 2030. Do you have any comments about that? Clearly, there are differing views, depending on where you stand. Dr Blackwell.

In terms of the welfare of the dogs, the implementation group have been given evidence by the rehoming charities of how they would manage a phased ban on greyhound racing in terms of rehoming the dogs, and we've looked into the average time taken to rehome a greyhound and the requirements for those, which are slightly different from other dogs that they take in, and it seems like a reasonable plan for rehoming the dogs in an orderly manner. Also, they have rehomed a similar number of dogs, where there have been large cases, with a collaboration between the rehoming organisations, so we don't see any problem with the 12-month timescale. It seems a reasonable period of time in which to rehome the dogs.

Fine, because, when I heard some of this evidence, I felt there was a contradiction in that, very often, they tell us that they don't have capacity, but then, when we were discussing this, they found it.

Yes. Some don't have capacity. Some always work with this contingency. And this is something we've asked in the implementation group. So, they've come together and looked at whether they do have the capacity, and they're already taking in hundreds of greyhounds, so some of it will be just replacing that.

Okay. Anybody else on that? No. Okay, thank you. And then, just finally from me for now—

Sorry, Llyr—Dr Humphreys indicated.

I apologise.

Sorry, yes, thank you. Ideally, I think, if it came in sooner, it would be better in terms of animal welfare, because there are dogs that are suffering now, and I think animal charities have expressed an interest, as Dr Blackwell said, in rehabilitating the dogs and accounting for them and taking them on. However, the timescale for the ban, as noted in the Bill, which is no later than April 2030, would allow for a phase-in, I think. And given that there are, I think, few racing tracks currently in Wales, trying to get the dogs to be rehomed or handed over to animal charities within 12 months might not have any practical effect, because I don't know how many dogs are currently being used in Wales. I think there are very few racehound tracks that are currently operating, so, in practice, I don't know whether the 12 months or longer period would have any effect.

Yes. It's one track, isn't it? And I think it's about 120 dogs—I recall seeing that figure somewhere. But what about—? Obviously, the longer it goes without being banned, the longer the pipeline is operating—you know, the younger dogs will still be coming through and still be being bred in anticipation, but obviously then there will be nowhere for them to go. Dr Blackwell.

That's going to create more and more dogs that need to be rehomed, so, from an animal welfare perspective, I think that, within 12 months, or no later than 12 months, would be preferable to the later date in the Bill of 2030.

Dr Blackwell wanted to come in as well. 

Yes. I think, ideally, we should have a cut-off point at which new registrations to race at the Valley track happen so that we're not just bringing new dogs into the industry once the ban's under way—once the phase is under way.

Can I just ask one question, then? Because I was going to come back on this later on, but it runs pretty seamlessly into this, really. Of course, that is an important consideration in terms of animal welfare, but there are broader considerations here, aren't there, in terms of jobs and the human impact in terms of the economy, in terms of a cultural impact, potentially, as well. So, would the three-year window obviously be there to accommodate some of those considerations? It's a wider balance that you have to strike here. 

Potentially, absolutely, and within the implementation group we're looking at those impacts. We've asked for further information and detailed information from the Valley so that we know exactly how many people and how many industries are going to be impacted by this. But, in terms of the dog welfare, then the 12-month period seems reasonable. 

Yes, okay. 

I think that the estimates are of between 250 and 300 dogs racing at the Valley at the moment, and we're just about to start—well, we've started—a piece of work to ask the trainers what will actually happen if a ban comes in, what would happen to those dogs, because some will be kept by the trainers, some will be sold on, some will be kept to be raced in England, and then there will be some that are rehomed. So, we've started a piece of work asking them so that we have a better idea of exactly how many dogs we'll be dealing with.

There we are. Thank you for that clarity. That's important. Diolch yn fawr. Thank you, Chair. 

Diolch. We have just over 15 minutes left and are moving on to questions from Gareth Davies now.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Bore da, pawb. I want to focus on regulation this morning, if I may, and seek views from each of the witnesses as to what your views are on the effectiveness of the GBGB regulation in protecting racing greyhounds. Firstly, to what extent does the GBGB welfare strategy, 'A Good Life for Every Greyhound' protect the dogs' welfare, and, secondly, what are your views on the GBGB greyhound retirement scheme and the injury recovery scheme?

It's open to anybody.

I think that there were hopes when these GBGB regulations were introduced that this would have a significant benefit, but injury and death rates across GBGB licensed tracks have been largely stable across the last five years, but actually kicked up significantly within one of the most recent years. So, sadly, I'm not actually seeing that translate into significant changes to this picture in practice, which is obviously what is needed to address the serious welfare concerns for these dogs. So, sadly, I don't think that these are adequate. One example, as I mentioned, is the requirement for a licensed veterinarian to be at licensed tracks inspecting dogs pre racing, but, as I've mentioned, the actual time period is quite inadequate. The ability to detect a significant proportion of the problems that then go on to cause or contribute to causing serious injuries during racing resulting in euthanasia can't be detected adequately in those inspections. So, unfortunately, I don't think that they're producing the necessary substantial improvements that are warranted.

Thank you, Professor Knight. Any other responses to those questions at all? 

We've got Dr Humphreys and Dr Blackwell. We'll go to Dr Humphreys first. 

Yes, I just wanted to say that the slogan, 'A Good Life for Every Greyhound', in my view, is welfare washing, because greyhounds generally don't live a good life. So, I would be quite sceptical about that slogan. As Professor Knight has said, the injury recovery scheme and the greyhound retirement scheme haven't had the effect that they were supposed to have, and that's by and large because injury and death is part and parcel of the practice of greyhound racing and goes back to the question of whether regulation can solve these problems. So, it's inevitable, I think, due to the nature of greyhound racing, that injury and death will occur. And yes, I have concerns about the slogan 'A Good Life for Every Greyhound'.

Could you clarify what you mean by 'welfare washing'? I've not heard that one before.

It's a bit like greenwashing, in the sense that we're presenting a picture of animals living good lives, ones in which they flourish and in which their species-specific needs are taken into account, but, actually, we're hiding behind this picture the suffering that actually occurs. So, it makes it sound like they want to do the right thing, and the intentions are good, to provide animals with a good life—in this case greyhounds—but, in fact, behind this image of every greyhounds living a good life is the reality of greyhounds' lives.

Yes, yes. Warm words, basically.

Thank you. I know Dr Blackwell also wanted to come in.

Yes. Just to say that I think my main concern is the gap in this. So, GBGB have implemented these guidelines, which have the best will in terms of improving greyhound welfare and have probably made a difference in terms of their lives within the kennels, but there is a gap in that 84 per cent of racing greyhounds come from Ireland, so we don't know what's happening. These aren't covered. The time that they spend when they're bred and reared up to about one year of age we don't know anything about and they're not covered by the GBGB guidelines, and that's my main concern.

I'm interested, really, in this line of questioning, because the Cabinet Secretary responsible for the Bill told us that licensing would simply mirror GBGB's regulations. So, what's your view on that comment, obviously, in relation to the comments you've made already to the first question, in that you don't generally feel that GBGB's animal welfare strategy or regulations seem to be sufficient? So, what would be your response to the Cabinet Secretary's comment in that regard, then?

Well, my main concern would be that they don't cover this period of the greyhounds' lives. So, that would be my main concern about that. And I think there are so many inherent problems with the way greyhounds are kept and housed that it would be very difficult without really expanding the licensing of the regulations to the point that it couldn't continue in the way that it does at the moment. So, if I see clinical cases of pets with behaviour problems, and if a pet owner came to me and described their dog's life as that of a greyhound, I would be advising them to improve conditions, increase their choice and control over their environment, increase environmental and social enrichment to improve the psychological health of their dog, before we even dealt with a specific behaviour problem, and I think trying to do that with racing greyhounds is seen as insurmountable in terms of trying to address all of those issues.

Any other responses to the Cabinet Secretary's comments around regulation and that mirroring GBGB's?

Dr Wigham's indicated.

Yes. Thank you. This is mostly going to your previous point. As part of our SAWC report, we did review the 'A Good Life for Every Greyhound' welfare strategy. However, that was just published when we were producing our report, and we did conclude that there were some aspects of the strategy that were very positive and they have taken some of the issues very seriously, and we outlined that the strategy as it stands has a major focus on things like veterinary care, stakeholder education and also the nutrition of dogs, but it did give slightly less of a focus on things like behavioural issues and some of the mental states of dogs, which are equally important in the five domains model that they used to write the strategy. Again, this is from a couple of years ago now, so this information might have changed. But when we were speaking to GBGB, as part of our evidence-gathering work, they mentioned that in order to fund the strategy it would require voluntary contributions from bookmakers and, at that time, that that funding wasn't secured. Again, this potentially will have changed in the years since. So, that was my comment to your previous question. Thank you. 

In terms of the regulations in England, the Welfare of Racing Greyhounds Regulations 2010, I know they're England only currently, but to what extent and what view do you have—? Do you believe that these regulations have improved dogs' welfare in England in comparison to Wales, given that those regs have been in place for 15 years now? It's open to anybody to respond.

Dr Wigham has indicated. 

Great, thank you. Again, this is from us working in Scotland, where that regulation isn't in place. As far as we were aware, that regulation mostly focuses on the welfare of the greyhounds at the track and it doesn't really incorporate some of the other significant welfare risks throughout the whole cycle of the greyhound that we previously discussed. Thank you. 

And in your opinion, do you believe that the racing industry is prepared to make the changes to improve dog welfare generally? 

Professor Knight, and then Dr Blackwell.    

I think there are a couple of problems. One is lack of funds. Simply looking at the existing kennels and the track conditions, the pre-racing inspection and so on, to substantially reform those would require significant amounts of money. An obvious example is to change curved tracks into straightened tracks, the biggest single positive change for welfare in terms of reducing injury and death risks at tracks that could occur. There hasn't been the funding. This is expensive to do. I think that's one reason why industry hasn't, broadly speaking, been willing to implement those changes so far.

I think there's also, in some quarters, a lack of will as well. I recall, when I published my 2018 report on injuries and deaths in racing greyhounds, the Dogs Trust in London established a meeting with representatives from GBGB and myself, and various other experts. They committed to having further meetings and trying to progress some of the recommendations within my report. That actually never happened. There was never any follow-up. So, I think, sometimes, there also isn't sufficient will to change. Maybe that comes back to the major cost implications of doing so. I'm not sure. 

And just on that—. Sorry, Chair.   

Dr Blackwell also wanted to come in, and I just wanted to remind everyone we have got about seven minutes left of this session. 

Okay, noted. 

Just very quickly then, I should say that the industry have engaged enthusiastically with welfare research that we've done, and they are currently involved in a consortium—the kennel dog welfare assessment group—to produce a tool to assess the welfare of dogs kennelled across the sectors. But I do think that the implementation of those recommendations, for the reasons that Professor Knight just outlined, is incredibly difficult for them to achieve.

Okay. Thank you. I'll hand back to you, Chair. 

Thank you. Dr Wigham indicated, then I'm going to bring Llyr Gruffydd in. 

Just a small point that I don't think has been raised yet. As part of our evidence-gathering procedure we did speak to a range of different greyhound owners, or I should say we received evidence from a range of different people who are involved in the greyhound racing sector in Scotland. And it did vary from those who were hobby owners, whose animals were kept more like a pet—. We deemed them to have pretty good welfare standards. So, they weren't kennelled, or if they were kenneled it was only for a short period of time, and they were involved in the racing, but they were not licensed by GBGB. I think that's where it's slightly different in Scotland, because we did have that unlicensed track. And then, on the opposite side of that, we've had some reports—some old Scottish SPCA reports—about some of the issues that are associated with some of the larger commercial racing facilities.

Thank you. Llyr.

Thank you. Obviously, we've been listening to you for almost an hour now, and I'm just wondering, mindful of the fact that we already have animal welfare legislation, and the five freedoms that are outlined in that—. When you think of them, they are: freedom from fear and distress, which touches on the mental health stuff that you've been talking about; expressing normal behaviour; freedom from pain and injury; discomfort, which means giving them a proper environment to live in; freedom from hunger and thirst—and, Professor Knight, you started with questions about dietary deficiencies, et cetera. I see a contradiction here in that we have legislation, which they are meeting in terms of animal welfare, yet you say that they're not—or at least you sound as if you're saying that they're not. So, how is it still operating?

I think we see this with many animal-use industries, where there is actually a case to be made that the practice is not consistent with animal welfare legislation, and yet it continues. I think that partly is to do with education, compliance, enforcement and resourcing for all of those things. But, as we've said, I think, several times in this meeting, there's also the concern that many of these animals are coming from places like Ireland, where legislation doesn't apply, and we have very little oversight and, often, a lack of information. But we know that thousands of greyhounds have been bred and seem to, effectively, disappear, and we're not sure what's happening to them. So, having the industry continue in a place like Wales drives that production pipeline, and the thousands of animals in those circumstances who are beyond the reach and protection of legislation within jurisdictions such as Wales.

So, if current legislation was more effectively implemented and enforced, then maybe we wouldn't need this ban.

I think it would certainly help, but I don't think it would be sufficient to fully resolve the problems.

Okay. So, you don't believe that the Animal Welfare Act 2006 is doing what it says on the tin. 

Unfortunately not. It is quite clear, I think, that many of these animals in current kennels and the conditions in which they're being raced does result in things like avoidable risks of serious harm. There are problems with diets. There are problems with the environments, the husbandry conditions in the kennels. There are certainly mental problems, which is one of the five domains within this legislation, resulting from things like lack of socialisation opportunities, environmental enrichment, opportunity to exercise highly motivated natural behaviours, such as mixing with other dogs and exploring a broader range of environments than just the kennel and just the training and racing tracks. So, yes, it's certainly arguable that current practices don't comply, in many respects, but, clearly, the legislation is not adequate to protect these dogs as it stands.

In every sector you will have good apples and bad apples. Is there not a danger that maybe we're over-egging the negatives here in order to achieve a policy outcome?

I don't think so, because I think this is a systemic issue. It relates to factors such as the tracks being circular, and many other aspects of track design, lures, starting boxes. It relates to the greyhounds themselves—the fact that they are the fastest dogs, with the speeds at which they run—[Inaudible.]

You've just been muted, sorry, Professor Knight. Yes, you're back.

Okay. It relates to the dogs themselves—the speed at which they run, the ages at which they are raced prior to full skeletal strength, in many cases, predisposing to fractures. It relates to the pipeline from which these dogs are being sourced. So, whether they're particularly bad kennels or good environments, such as some of these largely home-kept greyhounds that were mentioned recently, these are perhaps more like outliers on both ends of the spectrum, but there are these systemic issues affecting the industry broadly that are much bigger than just the bad and good apples. 

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. I saw that Dr Wigham had indicated. Did you want to come in?

It was just following up on the question about the animal welfare Act. We did address this in our SAWC report. Our report outlined that over a five-year period, there had been 21 complaints received, and that was in regard to racing kennels, and that was through the Scottish SPCA. But, to date, from when we published that report, these complaints have not been upheld, and it was concluded that although the conditions of these dogs weren't ideal, they did actually meet the minimum standard of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006. So, we've concluded that although these kennels might be providing adequate care, they do not appear compatible with giving dogs a good quality of life. Thank you.

Diolch yn fawr—thank you.

Thank you very much. I'm sorry, I can see, Dr Humphreys, that you've indicated. If it can be very, very brief, because we are out of time. 

Irrespective of the industry, I think dogs also have interests in their own right. They have value in their own right, irrespective of issues relating to profit, entertainment and sport, and I don't think that should be missing from the picture.

Thank you very much. Thank you to our four witnesses today.

I'm afraid you're on mute, so we'll just get you unmuted. You don't need to press anything. It's going to be automatically done. So, if we can unmute Simon. No? There's an issue there. We'll come back. Well, I can see Madeleine. Madeleine.

Yes, can you hear me okay?

Yes, fine.

Great. Good morning, everyone. I'm Professor Madeleine Campbell. I'm one of the independent directors of the Greyhound Board of Great Britain. I'm a veterinary surgeon who is a Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and European specialist in animal welfare science, ethics and law. My role within the greyhound board is very much to help direct and implement our welfare strategy.

Welcome this morning. Simon, I can see you're now unmuted.

You can hear me now. I'm Simon Franklin, I'm the promoter at Great Yarmouth stadium. I'm a board director of the Greyhound Board of Great Britain and I'm also chairman of the Racecourse Promoters Association, which represents the majority of the racecourses.

Welcome. Katie.

Hi, I'm Kate Bennison. I'm here representing the Valley stadium and the owners and operators of that. I'm also a GBGB board director and an RCPA director. 

Thank you. Welcome. And finally, Mark.

Good morning. I'm Mark Bird. I'm the chief executive of the Greyhound Board of Great Britain. 

You're all welcome this morning, and thank you for giving your time. If we can move on to the first question, and that will be from me. So, can I ask: how popular is—? Sorry, there is background noise, is there, Llyr?

There's another person on the panel.

I'm really sorry. Thank you for indicating. Richard. 

Last but not least, hopefully.

Apologies.

I'm Richard Brankley, I'm head of operations for Satellite Information Services, and we are the media rights distributor for Valley greyhounds, so we're responsible for collecting all of the live racing pictures and associated metadata around greyhound racing, and distributing that to betting operators around the world.

You're very welcome and apologies for that. If I can move on to our first question then. How popular is greyhound racing in Wales, and specifically in terms of Valley stadium, is there attendance data that could be shared with the committee? Katie.

Obviously, our weekly attendance varies based on school holidays, whether we've got open racing, but in a general week out of school holidays, we'd have around 200 attendees at the stadium. But then in a week when we race on a Saturday evening, like we will be this Saturday, we'll have around 150 people just at that meeting. Again, on those days the attendance is much higher, and also when we have different things like fun days for National Greyhound Week, we get really good attendances.

Most greyhound tracks across the UK race during the week and then have at least one fixture on the weekend or a Friday night, to give the local community time to come. So, that's why we race every Sunday morning. That's very well attended, often by multigenerations of families. The Wednesday and Thursday meetings that we currently race aren't hugely well attended, but it does give time for a core group of people who come to nearly every meeting for social interaction, where they wouldn't necessarily get it somewhere else.   

Thank you. You indicated 'well attended' on those Sunday mornings.

Yes. I'd say it's around 100 people on the Sunday morning. 

Thank you. Do you have figures for those watching the Valley stadium races remotely at all? 

I'll pass that over to Richard who'll be best placed to answer that. 

Thanks, Katie. We don't record the viewer figures in the same way that you would do for a television programme, but any conservative estimate of the number of people watching racing would be in the 100,000 bracket. I can briefly give some context to that number range. There are approximately 7,000 betting shops in the UK and Ireland, and racing live from the Valley is shown three to four times a week. So, all of the customers that go in and out of each of those shops over the four-hour period of each race meeting. Additionally, domestic online bookmakers stream every race live from the Valley, and many operators provide a constant stream of racing to their customers—what they would call a 'watch and bet' model.

Similarly, media websites will also cover the racing. Our very own www.sisracing.tv website has a dedicated stream of live greyhound racing, and that one platform alone clocks up 0.25 million unique visitors every month, watching live greyhound racing. And, of course, there's a whole host of social media platforms—Twitter, TikTok, Mastodon and a whole host of other platforms that I would struggle to recognise, if truth be told—that use live racing, and replays of racing are shown across all of those platforms domestically.

Finally, I would say that outside of the domestic market, as one of the largest distributors of live racing content, SIS delivers over 22,000 greyhound races a year to over 400 customers in 50 countries. Again, that will be to retail shops, online betting platforms, betting terminals. It includes all of the largest bookmakers in the world. One of the key reasons that racing is so successful and universally enjoyed by all of those operators and customers is the confidence that they have in both the integrity and welfare of the racing that regulation affords us. 

So, in short, there are a lot of eyeballs on greyhound racing and probably considerably more than most people would readily expect.

Thank you for that response. Can I ask—maybe the other witnesses would like to come in on this one—to what extent has the sport seen a decline in popularity, both in Wales and the UK more generally? Mark.

I think there has been a decline. You can see that greyhound racing was probably at its most popular after the second world war, and we'll be coming up to 100 years of greyhound racing in the UK. But you'll see that the shrinkage in a lot of that has been due to the fact that most racing tracks were in areas where there was high social deprivation; those areas have since been gentrified and the ground has been taken back, for housing, et cetera.

If you look at Wales, my understanding is that, back in the 1960s, there were at least 10 greyhound tracks in Wales. Most of those would have been centred around the mining/steel communities, people would've raised dogs as part of their hobbies, part of their socialisation in those areas. But, as I said, for any number of reasons, but most notably, the fact that areas have become gentrified means we have seen fewer and fewer tracks. We're now down to 19 in the UK, the Valley being one of them. The Valley has bucked the trend; it's moved from a non-GBGB-licensed track to obviously becoming a licensed track more recently—and it is more recently, in that sense. But it still remains a popular sport. It's still a—[Inaudible.]—sport as far as those that attend to that. I've been up to the Valley on a number of occasions and spoken to the people who regularly attend there. They see it as part of their community and part of what they do for their social lives. So, it has shrunk.

I think the other thing that needs to go hand in hand with that is the fact that the smaller it has become, the more sustainable as a sport it's become as well, certainly in terms of things like the welfare of the dogs, not only in their racing careers, which is what GBGB have historically managed, but also what happened to them before, but also what happens to them when they finish their racing careers and go into retirement. So, it may have shrunk, but it's a far more sustainable sport going forward into the future.

Thank you. Richard and then Simon.

Thank you. Just to add that it's definitely a changing social and betting landscape, but that shouldn't undermine the legitimacy and the cultural heritage that greyhound racing has. Certainly, at an economic and cultural level, it's still at the heart of betting-shop life. You know, it's part of the ritual of turning the newspapers over on a display board in a betting shop, when you move from the morning to the afternoon meeting. Even in a landscape that seems to be dominated by soccer, if you look at the most recent Gambling Commission figures, greyhound racing still accounts for 12 per cent of over-the-counter cash across betting shops. As Mark indicated, it's still a very popular spectator sport, and I think it's ranked—is it No. 6, Mark—just behind women's football. Greyhound racing is No. 6 on the list of most-attended spectator sports: 1.2 million people attended greyhound racing physically last year, so it's still a very popular sport.

Thank you. I can see Simon would like to come in.

Hi. Can you hear me?

Yes.

I think we all know the hospitality sector at the moment is challenging, but you've just got to look: recently, you've got Oxford open up again as a new track; you've got Dunstall Park, which has very recently opened. If you try and book into Romford on a Friday and Saturday night, you'll struggle to get in at the restaurant—it's fully booked. I think, in these challenging times, greyhound racing is bucking the trend. People attend meetings that are on at the popular social times. You look at us, we're one of Great Yarmouth's leading evening entertainment venues. We'll host over 2,000 people a week at greyhound racing in the summer. You've got families, you've got grandparents that have been coming for years that bring their children and bring their grandchildren. It's a traditional night out that's now approaching its centenary, and the meetings that people can attend are still very well attended.

Thank you. Would anyone else like to add anything or—? Can I ask, therefore, how do you respond to the Welsh Government's proposal to ban greyhound racing, based on animal welfare and ethical grounds? Who would like to take this first? Madeleine.

I'll start, if I may. In order to answer that, I need to just lay a little bit of groundwork about what we mean by the ethical use of animals in sport and otherwise, and how we assess welfare. So, I'll do that briefly, if you don't mind bearing with me, please.

There's a lot of discussion at the moment, in the public, obviously, about the use of animals in sport—generally horses as well as greyhounds and sled dogs. There is an argument that has developed that goes along the lines that there is something ethically distinct about humans using animals for competitive sport compared to for all other purposes. And the reason it's ethically distinct is because it's uniquely trivial, and the reason it's uniquely trivial is that the benefits to humans are trivial. So, they are benefits around social factors, enjoyment, and it has also become confounded with societal arguments around betting, which I won't begin to go into now.

I don't accept that starting point that there is something uniquely trivial about using animals in sport compared to using them for all other purposes. I'm using the word 'use' advisedly, because that's what we do when we keep animals for food production, when we use them in medical science, and indeed if we keep them as companions. All of those human uses of animals expose animals to at least potential harms, and in fact, if you think about it, the benefits to humans from all of those, with the exception of using animals in medical science, are also trivial. So, we don't need to eat meat or drink milk. We don't need to have dogs as companions. Many pet dogs get left for hours each day, and so on and so forth. So, that argument around unique triviality, I don't think stacks up from an intellectual point of view.

Now, if you take an animal rights point of view, in which you don't believe that humans ought to use animals at all, and you think that animals have an absolute right to free will, and not to having what they're doing dictated by humans, then it would be consistent to reply to what I've just said, 'Well, that's fine, okay, it's not ethically distinct using animals in sport because it's uniquely trivial; they may all be trivial uses of animals, but none of them are acceptable from an animal rights point of view because they take away the animal's free will and expose them to at least potential harms.' That would be a perfectly valid philosophical point of view if you applied it across all human uses of animals. And, of course, some academics do, and people such as Professor Andrew Knight, who is a proponent of a vegan diet, for example, and very consistent on that, but that's not the majority societal point of view. Generally speaking, we do allow the use of animals, provided that their welfare needs are protected.

And that's where we come to the welfare part of this, which is really important. I do work—

We've lost you for a second there. It seems Madeleine's connection has been lost. I don't know if anyone else wanted to come in on this point. No. Apologies, Madeleine, we lost you for a while. No. We'll move on, and hopefully Madeleine will be able to rejoin us. I don't know if anyone else wanted to come in. Nobody indicated. If not, can we move on, therefore, to questions from Lee Waters?

Yes. Diolch. Thank you very much. I just want to ask about the data. The Welsh Government are using GBGB's own data. Forgive me. I see that Madeleine is back.

She is, but I would ask the clerking team if they could mute her, please, because it's not a stable connection at the moment.

Okay. So, yes, just the data. The Welsh Government is using your own data to justify its ban on the number of injuries and fatalities, and I just wanted to give you a chance to respond on how they're using that data. Mark.

So, at the end of the day, we've been publishing data since 2018 as a result of a review into greyhound racing by Westminster, and we're happy to do that. Overall, the data is very positive in terms of where the transition is going. You've only got to look—. I mean, the next question was about fatalities, but those fatalities over that period of time have more than halved in terms of the number of dogs that are being put round the track, in terms of fatalities, but also, last year, we saw a significant drop in injuries as well.

I think the problem we have with the Welsh Government citing it is the fact that you've got the charities—some of whom you had on last week—who were citing inaccurate, historic, or even misleading data. I think once that's been put out into the ether, so to speak, people believe that that is the case. We spend a lot of time both with the Government, but also with media et cetera, having to correct that data. A good example of that is where they cite the number of injuries, putting the number of injured dogs. That isn't the case. One dog could have a collision on the track and could pick up three minor injuries. All three of those injuries would count. It wouldn't be three dogs injured; it would be three injuries, if that makes sense.

So, as I said, we have no issue with any Government, especially the Welsh Government, looking at the data and making their own interpretation, but it has to be one that is valid. And we don't agree, therefore, that the data should be used in the way that the Welsh Government has to decide the evidence for that.

It would help then, wouldn't it, if we had specific data for the Valley stadium, and we don't. 

No, and I don't disagree with that again. Obviously, we as a regulator have not published disaggregated data, on the basis that some tracks might be targeted by the animal rights element that Madeleine was talking about a little while ago. But when we first started talking to the officials—the Welsh officials—about regulation and everything else, we did offer them the opportunity to have briefings with Ministers regarding what the specific data was for the Valley. And that would have remained, had the ban not been contemplated.

So, can you provide this committee with that data?

We could provide the committee with the data. The issue we have, again, is that you're then subject to freedom of information requests from animal rights groups that would then ask you specifically what that data was. 

So, when we originally set this up, it was to verbalise that data to Ministers and to officials. 

Well, it's not a secret state, is it? This is—. We're talking about a ban. Surely, it's relevant to have that information in the public domain. 

Well, if I tell you that, for last year's fatality figures, the mean number of dogs dying at each of the tracks as a result of their injuries was six, and as far as the Valley was concerned, they were below the mean. 

Okay. Well, perhaps we can discuss with you outside of the meeting what specific Valley stadium data you're willing for us to have—

Yes, of course. 

—and to publish, or to have and not publish, or that you have a degree of comfort with. That is worth having a conversation on, isn't it?

Just on the data that's available and what it shows, I note from the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission analysis of your data, it showed—and it was published in 2023, but it refers to 2021—that there's a 24 per cent risk of a dog incurring an injury in a year, taking part in regulated racing on one of your tracks. That seems quite high. Is that a figure that you—? Is that an analysis that you contest?

It would be interesting to see what data they're actually using for that. If you look at—. Was that 2022 you were looking at?

2021. It's—

The 2021 data.

This is all in their published report.

Well, on the percentage of injuries against total runs, there was a 1.23 per cent chance of a dog being injured in a particular race.

Doesn't that just mean they run a lot?

No, they don't run a lot. The number of runs has, actually, significantly gone down over the years as well. Again, I've spoken already about sustainability, so there is less racing, therefore there are fewer runs. And one of the things that we as the regulator have also done is make sure that there are safeguards in terms of the number of times a dog can run in any one week. For example, a dog cannot run any more than once every four days.

But you don't dispute this analysis of your figures, showing a 24 per cent risk of incurring an injury in a year.

Well, I don't know what data they're putting that up against. As I said, our data shows that there's a 1.2 per cent chance of a dog becoming injured in any given race. 

Well, both those things could be true, could they not?

Well, I'm giving you the evidence that I've got in front of me. I don't know what SAWC put out, other than saying it's a 24 per cent chance. We did not agree, necessarily, with most of what SAWC were putting forward to the Scottish Government in any case, because, again, it's about misinterpretation of data.

Okay. Well, theirs is published data. You're not disputing it, you're just saying you have different data, which we can't see. 

Well, I don't know what data you're referring to, because I haven't—

I've told you the data I'm referring to, and it's published data, and it's based on your figures.

And so is our data, it's published. It's trying to compare apples and pears. I don't know what you're looking at.

Okay. Well, I'm happy to—. I've told you what I'm looking at. 

We can follow it up.

I'm happy to share it. But isn't this part of the problem here, that we are talking at cross purposes, or that there's not an agreed set of data on which to form or have a common argument?

There is an agreed set of data that we provide to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs every year that we would provide to the Welsh Government as well. So, I don't know what interpretation that SAWC put on that to come up with a 24 per cent chance of a dog being injured within a year.

So, what's your data on the percentage of injuries, or the percentage of risk of incurring an injury per year, per dog?

Well, it's not percentage per dog; it's 1.29 per cent chance of a dog becoming injured in any given race.

That's different, isn't it? So, 1 per cent of all dogs get injured. Is that what you're telling us?

There's a 1.29 per cent chance of a dog being injured within a race. It's a difference in terms of the percentages that we're talking about, but also what the actual risk is. I think one of your questions relates to more racing therefore meaning there's a greater risk; well, it doesn't mean that at all.

Okay. So, what is the percentage of dogs that do race that get injured?

It's 1.29 per cent, in terms of per run. That's our data.

That's per run, yes, but the overall number—do you have a figure for the overall number of dogs?

I don't have that data, no.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Simon.

Sorry, I keep having to try and unmute, because apparently I have an old Zoom.

The injuries we've published and the 1.29 per cent, as Mark quotes, are not all career-ending injuries. They're injuries we report. That can be a split web, which is a cut on a foot. It can be a torn toenail. It can be a spike by another—. The injuries we report are not all serious and career ending. From promoters, sometimes, I think we publish too much in the way of injuries, because with some of these injuries—the 1.29 per cent—they can be back racing a week or two later. It's not all career ending and not all serious injuries that we report. We're honest and frank with what we publish, and we do publish everything.

Do you know what percentage of the figures you report are due to injured toenails?

No. No, I couldn't tell you that, but I think it's something we as an industry have always said we're too open on, and we literally publish anything. A dog within that 1.29 per cent can be running a week later. It can be something that minor.

Okay.

Thank you. Richard.

Could I just add? I read the transcript of the exchange last week, and there were a number of figures and pieces of data that were brought forward that I did not recognise and that I felt were unchecked, unaudited and unsubstantiated.

As the media rights distributor for racing, we're very proud to distribute the racing from Valley, as we do for other great institutions in Wales. We deliver racing from Ffos Las, from Chepstow, from Bangor to the betting shops all around the UK. The date that I have is November 2023, because any stories, any alleged data, prior to 2023 really have no relevance, because as an unregulated track, there was no data. We welcome the fact that there has been a significant multimillion-pound investment in Valley Greyhounds to have all of the track improvements, the air-conditioned kennels, to have the on-site expertise and personnel and veterinary care and attention around the racing, and it's the only reason that, as a responsible media rights provider, we're happy to engage with Valley and send those pictures around the world, because of regulation. Regulation works, and we welcome the transparency that GBGB brings to the sport, because it makes the sport more sustainable and more acceptable for everybody that enjoys it. Anything that you've said before 2023 really doesn't count here.

If there is evidence that this committee has been presented with that you contest and you have different figures, it would be very helpful for us to see them.

I certainly will. And just to answer one question that was raised in your exchange there—and it's something that we track as part of our data—the average number of times that a greyhound races across our betting platform is 3.6, so a greyhound will have 3.6 runs per month.

Okay.

Thank you. Madeleine.

Thank you, and I'm so sorry I got cut off. Could I perhaps try and go back and pick up from where I was, because I think it will put some context around this discussion around injury data?

We have moved on in terms of our evidence, but if you would like to add briefly—.

Yes, I'll be brief, absolutely. I think the point that I had got to was saying that there's nothing ethically distinct about using animals in sport and what is important is how we meet their welfare needs. We understand what those needs are very well for racing greyhounds, and we need to meet them across their lifetimes, across all five domains of animal welfare, which I'm sure you're familiar with. And when we do that, then we provide them with good lives—and 'good lives' isn't a randomly thought-up phrase, it's a phrase that's defined by Professors Mellor and Wathes to mean a life in which, from the animal's point of view, they have a substantially positive welfare experience, taken across their lifetime. And that allows for a discrete moment of negative welfare experience. For example, if they get injured, providing that that's treated appropriately and quickly by a veterinary surgeon, then they will still have good lives, substantially positive welfare experiences taken across their lifetimes. 

This is why, to go back to the question that you originally asked and I was trying to answer, the Bill as presented currently really does nothing to improve animal welfare because it does nothing to promote good, positive welfare across those five domains and to minimise them; all it does it simply to ban racing. And that is relevant also to the discussion around injury figures. Of course, we always are trying to drive injuries down, and that's why GBGB has committed a substantial amount of money to research within the welfare strategy, which is being undertaken by independent academic partners to try to identify the causes of injury and to keep driving them down. Injuries are a very small part of the welfare story, and it really needs to be looked at much more holistically if we are being serious about welfare, rather than about animal rights and a ban.

Thank you. I'm glad that you've been able to rejoin us now as well. 

Thank you for your patience.

Thank you. Lee, are you happy that we move on? If I can move on to questions from Llyr Gruffydd. 

Thank you, Chair. One of the reasons that this is being proposed, of course, is that people feel that the existing regulation and the GBGB licensing arrangements, et cetera, might not be as effective as some people would wish. So, can you just set out to me, maybe, how the Valley stadium is currently regulated to support good animal welfare? Mark.

On a day-to-day basis, the track is inspected twice a month, randomly, by stipendiary stewards who are employed by GBGB. They can turn up unannounced any time they wish to over a month, and do that two times. If there are any particular issues with the track, that may increase, clearly, but it's a minimum of two times per month that they will visit the track. On top of that, you've obviously got a vet at every particular meeting or trial, and again that vet is objective in terms of what they do. They inspect the dogs when they come off the trainers' vans, they inspect the dogs when they go out to race, they watch the race, they inspect the dogs when they come back in again, and then they finally inspect the dogs when they leave the track. So, that happens at every race or trial meeting. On top of that, we have such a thing now as regional regulatory vets, who are GBGB employees but they can attend the tracks whenever they want to. And obviously, that's a big part, again, of checking the vets that are at the track to make sure they're doing what they're supposed to be doing. 

We've spoken about the track here, but don't forget that this also extends to trainers in Wales as well, with regard to the kennels. So, again there will be random inspections by the stipendiary stewards but also by the regulatory vets. There is also objectively a group called Supply Chain In-Sites, who go out to inspect those residential kennels as well to make sure that they're also in order. But then on top of that, there are also the local officials, who are obligated by our rules of racing to make sure that, if there are any indiscretions or things that go wrong at the track, they report those back to GBGB and then we carry out a full investigation of what has gone on. So, there is substantially more in the way of regulation than there was before the track was regulated by GBGB back in 2023.

So, if this is effective, why are we hearing evidence as a committee of poor kennelling and husbandry standards, socialisation issues, deficient diets in some cases?

I think that part of the issue is legacy. It's only since 2023—the tail-end of 2023 was when the track was actually licensed by the GBGB. You heard from Richard earlier saying there was a substantial upgrade on the track itself, with £2 million spent there, because that involved the building of air-conditioned kennels, a vet's room—all those sorts of things that weren't there when the Valley was an unregulated track, ostensibly. So, I think that what you've got, especially with Greyhound Rescue Wales, Hope Rescue, all those types of charities that are citing much of the evidence that's been before the Senedd, is that it's outdated and outmoded. And I think, even with comments from Professor Andrew Knight from earlier on, you know that his work is historic. And, actually, since we've had our welfare strategy, the leaps and bounds that have been made in terms of animal welfare for greyhounds have been substantial. And I think that's the issue that Wales has got—it's partially legacy and what was there before regulated racing came to Wales. 

And, as I think you suggested earlier, that's reflected in some of the statistics now, which tell a very different story.

Indeed, yes.

Okay. You mentioned the move from an independent to a licensed track, and the investment, et cetera. In evidence last week, I think it was, Blue Cross told us that there was an opportunity, maybe, to have upgraded from an oval shape to one that avoids high injury rates. That wasn't done. It remains the same shape. Where is the sector on the—? Because, obviously, the shape of the track does cause certain stresses and injuries, potentially. So, is that not something that you have, or will, consider in the future? Mark.

It's something that's in our welfare strategy—to look at the potential reduction of injuries further than what they are now, by looking at the introduction of straight tracks. Again, I don't know how sighted you are, but that's currently taking place in Australia. The Q track that's there has actually suspended racing on the straight track, because, actually, they've found it's been contrary to what you would expect. There's been a significant increase in injuries. Again, I can go to Katie, because there was a substantial amount of money that was spent in terms of restructuring the track that was already there, as part of that £2 million upgrade. But when we start talking about conversions, to be honest with you, most tracks are at a site where you could not put a straight track in. That's the reality of it. But, as I said, as a regulator, of course we're very keen to see what's happening in other states, most notably Australia, to see whether or not straight tracks do actually bring a long-term benefit in terms of reducing injuries. Katie, I don't know whether you want to add anything more to that.

Obviously, it is an oval track, like all the greyhound tracks. Like Mark said, most places couldn't adjust to a straight track. When it moved from an independent to a GBGB licenced track, a huge amount of work went into the track, and continues to do so. We added a white safety rail, we had a new hare rail and we did lots of work on the cambers and the sight lines. And since we've been racing, we've adjusted the bends slightly, just to avoid any further injuries.

The GBGB operate a grant scheme. Every track can get a grant each year towards track safety, which we've used. We've added padding to the bends. We're going to invest in a safety curtain, to stop the dogs continuing around the track. There's continuous maintenance going on the track, every single week. We also get four visits from the Sports Turf Research Institute every week, who are, internationally, the recognised surface specialists. They do a report on the track to say if we had any spots that were hard, or that didn't have enough camber. So, there are continuous improvements. So, for the Blue Cross to say that we just didn't do anything to the track is not factually true. 

Thank you. 

Llyr, both Madeleine and Richard have indicated.

Yes, of course. I apologise.

Shall I go first?

Yes, please.

Thank you. Also, to add to that, the other thing to bear in mind—and this is very evident through a research project that is currently in its final stages at the University of Nottingham, and that has been funded through the GBGB—is that injuries that happen at tracks are not all to do with the track itself. There are many other underlying factors, and all of those are taken into account within the GBGB's welfare strategy. We've commissioned research around all of those—so, from genetics, which Professor Emmeline Hill is doing research on at University College Dublin, through the nutrition, which you just mentioned, which Dr Teresa Hollands is doing research on. Injuries are a multifactorial thing, so of course, we're always looking to improve our evidence base around track factors and what we can do to keep improving safety of tracks themselves. But that is, again, only part of the picture, and the GBGB is working around all of the rest as well.

Thank you. Richard wanted to come in.

Thank you. I was going to double down on the comments that Katie made. I've been attending and managing greyhound tracks for nearly 30 years, and I can assure the committee that the track the greyhounds are racing around now in Ystrad Mynach is not the same track that it was prior to November 2023.

I think it's probably relevant to add as well that there is an evolution. Welfare is constantly evolving—our knowledge and understanding of how to prepare and maintain tracks is continuing to develop because it is focused around strong regulation. If you go back 30 years, greyhounds would run on grass. They were grass trucks, and they would be with grass straights with sanded bends. Now, they are entirely sand tracks. With the investment that the GBGB has made on understanding the various types of sand and which type of sand will be used at which individual track, and if it's a microclimate, how best to prepare that particular sand at that particular track, it is an evolving process. But I did want to make the point that the investment that's gone in to reshaping the track, to cambering the bends, to changing the hare from an inside to an outside, to putting in all of the rails and the safety mechanisms at the track, means that it is not the same track post November 2023 as it was before.

Okay, and just for completeness, am I right in saying that GBGB regulation is assessed and accredited by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service? Just explain their role to me. Thanks, Mark. 

Funnily enough, we are going through our yearly assessment that we have with the UKAS, which this year is a full assessment, so it's two full days with UKAS who sit on our shoulder questioning everything that we do. In reality, what that looks like at a practical level is that a UKAS assessor will join a stipendiary steward when they do an annual check of each of the tracks. Again, for completeness, it's not the same stipendiary steward that would normally attend the track, so it's another member of staff that's brought in. They will assess the assessor, so to speak, but they'll ensure all the aspects in relation to integrity. There's also a BSI PAS, a publicly accredited scheme, that we also have to apply to the track, but also to the residential kennels as well. So, that is again also assessed by UKAS. We're the only sport in the country that have that accreditation, and I'm glad to say that, subject to today, it's going to be signed off again for another year.

Okay, and UKAS is a body appointed by Government, isn't it?

Yes.

Okay, thank you. We're also aware, of course, that the GBGB welfare strategy relies on voluntary financing from the bookmaking industry. To what extent is lack of funding an issue? Mark again.

The issue is a real one. We've been speaking with bookmakers for a number of years now in terms of trying to increase that levy. As you're no doubt aware, horse racing has a statutory levy, and something we campaigned for last year was to try and get the Government to do that. I think the Government are not necessarily outwardly opposed to it, but they are concerned that it's another form of taxation. As you're probably also aware, there's a big debate going on about taxation full stop at the moment with horse racing, but also that impacts on greyhound racing as well.

You've also seen probably in the last week or so that bookmakers are talking about a shrinking retail market as well for them, especially if that taxation that we've been talking about comes into being. So, I can't row away from the fact that there is an issue around funding, not only for horse racing but also for greyhound racing as well, and we'd like to see an increase on that voluntary levy.

That said, what I would say is that we are meeting all of our obligations under our welfare strategy. We've met all of the short-term, we're in the process of meeting all the medium-term objectives as well. Because whilst the bookmakers pay into the voluntary levy, the tracks themselves, through the media deals that they get, will also contribute into the coffers of GBGB as well for regulation. So, we have offset some of that money to ensure that all of our welfare initiatives and obligations are being met.  

Okay, thank you. Finally, for now, then—. Sorry, Richard, you wanted to come in here. 

When it comes to finance, that's always a tricky question; you can alienate every single stakeholder with one comment, and I certainly don't want to do that, because I think funding within the greyhound ecosystem is quite a complex issue. But the voluntary contribution is only a very small part of the money that revolves around that ecosystem. We estimate that bookmakers, through media rights agreements and sponsorship, spend £80 million to support greyhound racing. There's always an interesting and, quite often, colourful stakeholder debate as to who should get different proportions of that money, whether it goes through to the regulator or whether it goes through to the track owner, how much filters down to the individual trainer and owner. So, we'd certainly not want to give the impression that the sport is awash with money, because it is not. But just to—[Inaudible.]—that all of the welfare commitments within the GBGB strategy and all of the obligations for each of the tracks are met and the money is available there to—[Inaudible.]

Yes, okay. Thank you. I'm just probably going to ask—. Katie, I think, is probably best to respond to this, just to conclude this particular section. Has Valley track ever required local authority enforcement on animal welfare grounds?

No. We invited officials for a visit that were, I think, from trading standards, but that was probably in 2024, but before—. That was while the consultation was going on, but that's been the only one that the business has received at the track. 

So, that was on a voluntary—. You invited them to come along just to see; it wasn't any enforcement action that they were taking. 

No. They just came to the track, and I think they saw the new facilities that we'd invested in, and I think they may have been there for a race meeting, but, yes. It was some time ago now, but it was prior to, or was part of, the consultation process, I think. 

Okay. Diolch yn fawr. Thank you, Chair.  

Diolch yn fawr iawn. If we can move on to questions from Gareth Davies. 

Thank you, Chair. Good morning, everybody. I'd like to, firstly, reference evidence to the Scottish Parliament's rural affairs committee during its greyhound racing inquiry. An academic raised concerns that the commercial purpose of greyhound racing brings opportunity for exploitation of animals in a way that's less likely when they are companion animals. How do you respond to that comment from the Scottish Parliament? It's open to anybody who wants to respond.

Shall I start? Is that okay? 

Yes, Madeline. 

Thank you. To start with, I don't accept the starting point of that comment, that companion animals are not a commercial business. In very many ways nowadays they are often a big commercial business, with puppies selling for enormous amounts, and we're all very familiar with, and the Animal Welfare Committee published a report just last year on, welfare issues associated with cat breeding and dog breeding, for example. Then there's a question about whether any human use of animals being commercial makes adverse welfare effects more likely, and, of course, that would be equally true of the farming sector. And so, I think the issue is always that we have to have appropriate regulatory systems in place and they have to be adequately enforced. And for greyhound racing, when it is regulated by GBGB, the amount of oversight in terms of individual animal welfare—and Mark already described what goes on not only at tracks but also in racing kennels—is actually vastly in excess of the oversight that would exist for pet, companion dogs. So, I don't really understand or agree with that argument.

Are there any other comments at all? 

There don't seem to be, Gareth. 

No. Okay, I'll move on. In your opinion, what proportion of the racing dogs’ lives is spent in kennels? And what impact does this have on their physiology and behaviour?

Who would like to go first? 

I could have an initial stab at that, if you like, and then I'll pass over to others. The routine of a racing greyhound's life, obviously, is it does spend some time in its kennel each day, and it's taken out regularly and it's exercised and so forth. So, the GBGB is very aware of the importance of safeguarding welfare whilst they are in their kennels, of ensuring that animals do have appropriate access to exercise to promote good physical strength, but also, obviously, good mental welfare. Part of that is around interactions with other animals, around enrichment in kennels.

Within the GBGB welfare strategy, we've been doing a huge amount of work with Dr Sarah Heath, who's probably the world-leading veterinary behaviourist and expert, who has been advising on exactly those kinds of issues: how we can add positive welfare effects to the lives of greyhounds living within racing kennels, and also, importantly, how what we do early in the stages of a greyhound's life can prepare them for the transition to a domestic environment upon retirement. That is an important part of what goes on during the part of time that they are spending not at a race track but in kennels. So, it's an important area; it's one that the GBGB are very focused on, and one on which we're taking external expert advice and following that advice.

Is there any data on that at all, Madeleine—any figures or anything that can justify those comments, really?

There's information on the work that Dr Heath has been doing within the short- and medium-term reports—I think both of them—which you've had links to in the written evidence. And then one of the ongoing pieces of work within the welfare strategy at the moment is the development of—. You may be familiar with Professor Sarah Wolfensohn's AWAG, animal welfare assessment grid, which she initially developed, actually, for laboratory and zoo animals. We've been developing a bespoke greyhound model of that with her external, independent help. What that will enable us to do will be to track across time the welfare state of individual greyhounds, so that, as it comes through—it's in its second pilot stage at the moment—will provide us with an ongoing stream of data to be able to evidence exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about.

Thank you. I can see that Lee Waters has indicated.

Yes, can I just follow up with Madeleine Campbell on a point there? She said a couple of times that the case is based on a whole-life look at the welfare of an animal, and there'll be periods of pressure, but, overall, periods of tranquillity. The evidence we've had from the rescue charities is that the business model relies upon these animals being rehomed when they're no longer of use commercially, but the amount of money given to the rehoming charities is only a fraction of the cost of rehabilitation and rehoming. I just want to ask: as your central welfare case rests on the whole-life welfare of the animal, your business model relies on somebody else paying for that, doesn't it?

I don't think so, but I'm going to pass over to Mark for the detail of how the greyhound retirement scheme and other parts of that work. It is a shared responsibility, and, again, this is a key theme within the welfare strategy, that greyhound owners and everyone share responsibility for making sure that greyhounds are properly prepared for that transition to domestic life, and that that process works smoothly. When you look at the figures, you can see, and this is in our most recent written evidence, that homing rates from GBGB homes are substantially increased over the first six months of this year compared to previous years. But let me pass over to Mark for the details on the business-model side of that.

Thank you. Mark.

I think, going back to Lee's point, it was whether or not we're underpinned by some of the homing charities. We would always like to ensure that there's more money going towards the transition from racing into the home environment. As you know, there is a crisis—an existential crisis—out there at the moment with all homing centres. As Madeleine just said, we, as a regulator, have really tried to change that, because, as most people who own a retired greyhound know, they are a breed apart in many respects. You know, they are athletes, they are sprint animals, but they're also great couch potatoes as well. 

So, we, as a board, decided some years ago now that we would demand, going back to that shared responsibility, that a bond be paid by owners when they first register their dogs, and at that particular time—. Well, it's now £200—£210, sorry, forgive me—and then when the greyhound gets to the end of its racing career and wants to transition on, which is anything between the ages of three and five as a good average, then we will match bond that to go to the charities. Now, different charities tell us different rates of what it costs for a dog to be homed. Some dogs can go in and, depending on their colour and their gender, they can go out very, very quickly. Other dogs are sticky dogs, for whatever reason, and they can take longer.312

We would, of course, like more money, but that money is, again, one of those things that we would demand from the bookmakers as part of their shared responsibility as well. We'd always like more money.

Simon Franklin.

We were talking about the trainers’ kennels, and how long the greyhounds are kept in kennels, and what enrichment they get. What I would say is that there are trainers coming in to give evidence this afternoon, and you would say to any of the committee: go to one of the trainers' kennels, look at how happy the greyhounds are, look at the lives they lead. Rather than listen to what the charities or the antis tell you, actually go for yourselves, see the kennels, see how happy the dogs are. And then we move on to the homing side of it. I can talk for Yarmouth. It isn't just, ‘The dog's retired, it's no use’—as it was quite crudely put to us—‘away you go.’ We've got a local charity, Yarmouth Greyhound Homefinders, that we work with. They've got kennels 20 miles from the track. They fundraise at the track. We've always got 12 retired dogs in there. We have a list that, when our greyhounds retire, they're spayed, they're neutered, they go onto a waiting list, they go into the kennels. We've got another deal with a local trainer who's more Wisbech based, which is where some of our dogs come from. She's permanently got six spaces in her kennels for us for the retired dogs. So, when they finish here, in rotation, they always go into different kennels and are homed from there. So, it's not as it's portrayed: ‘Right, you’re finished with’, and off they go. Far from it.

But the evidence we had was that the injuries, on average, that are being dealt with are costing significantly more to deal with than is provided in the bond. You don't think that's right, do you?

Are you saying that the greyhounds go into these retirement kennels with injuries? That's not the case. Before one of our greyhounds will go to a retirement kennel, they're checked by our vet. Normally, one of our trainers will bring the dog to the track, the vet will check it, and then it goes off. We use two specific homing kennels. That isn't the case. The teeth are checked; if the teeth aren't right, the teeth are sorted out. It isn't—

But that's based on two kennels. We were taking advice from Blue Cross, for example, who've had the experience right across the country. 

I'd love to know how many greyhounds Blue Cross actually homed in the year. You read all the welfare charities—‘We could find homes for 250 dogs if we ceased greyhound racing.’ Why are they not helping more now, if that's the case? Where are these 250 homes?

But my point, which you're not engaging with, is that the cost of looking after these animals is greater than the bond that's being provided.

The bond covers what we do, our charities, and the track covers any differences. So, no, I don't think that is the case. And you'll find as well a lot of owners will contribute on top of the bond to the homing centres if required.

So what do you make of Mark Bird's evidence, then, that there's not enough money going in?

Couldn't everyone do with more money? It would be great if we had more money as an industry. I sit here and look—. We talk about horse racing. Horse racing's got a bond of what, £105 million? Why are horse racing not here? Our euthanasia rate has dropped from 0.06 per cent to 0.03 per cent. Horse racing, with their £105 million levy, their euthanasia rate is 18 to 19 times higher than greyhound racing. There are three tracks in Wales that you're continuing with. What could we do if we had £105 million?

Yes, but my question is about the business model of your industry, and I started off by making—

And my question back to you is you're sitting there with—

Excuse me. Can I finish my question? Madeleine Campbell's case was that your welfare argument is based on the whole-life welfare of a greyhound, and the question I asked was, that is dependent on a business model that relies on the charitable sector for the recuperation of many of the animals that have passed out of the industry. And you're saying, based on the example of two kennels you deal with, that's not the case. 

Yes. 

I'm not sure it is currently the case at all. I think we may be back in the situation here of having confusion caused by what was historically going on at unregulated tracks. But the GBGB is quite clear in the way that—

Their evidence was current. It was about the current situation.

What, that there are greyhounds arriving from GBGB-regulated tracks into homing centres still injured?

If you look at the evidence we received last week from them—it's on the record—they were very clear that the cost of dealing with the animals is—

What do you mean by 'dealing with'? Are you talking about orthopaedic injuries? 

Looking after them, rehoming them, making them better. 

What do you mean by 'making better'? Do you mean animals that are arriving with orthopaedic injuries at homing centres? 

Well, I'm referring to the evidence we received from the charities last week. 

Right. I see that Katie had also indicated that she wished to come in. 

Yes, just filling in on this conversation as well. I'm part of the implementation group, and the homing charities have quoted it's £2,800 they think, on average, it will be to home a greyhound. And if they take in the estimated 250 dogs, it's circa £800,000. So, they're saying that they're going to get that funding from somewhere to home all these dogs. And your argument is, 'Where is the money coming from?' But this is not a consequence—. We're not intentionally trying to home these dogs. We're happy to do what we do, trying to fund our homing industry through the bond, additional donations and fundraising. 

As Madeleine mentioned earlier, in the first six months of this year for the greyhound retirement scheme approved homing centres, the figures were substantially higher than last year. But also, the owners and trainers who've privately homed their greyhounds has also increased. Again, the cost on that is a lot lower because they're not going into a homing centre; they're usually going directly from the trainer's kennel or maybe into a foster home before. As part of the bond scheme, all our greyhounds, their teeth should be done, they should be vaccinated, fleed, wormed, spayed or castrated. So, again, removing that cost element from the homing centre, so the dogs are going in ready and they're going in in that condition, so they're able to be homed as quickly as possible. And there's not that added cost on the homing centre.

Thank you. Madeleine. 

I do think that's a key point, just to reinforce what Katie has said. Under the GBGB system with the bond, the greyhound arrives at the homing centre in good health. So, I simply don't understand this argument that the charities are having to pay for making them well again. They're certainly paying for the cost of looking after the greyhounds whilst homes are found for them, and we're all working to reduce that period. It is related to the cost-of-living crisis and the general reduction in homes being offered to dogs. As we've just said, actually, GBGB centres are doing much better with homing than across the board at the moment for dog homing, but they are arriving at the homing centres in good health under the GBGB system.

Thank you. If we can return to Gareth Davies's questions. Sorry, we've got just under half an hour with evidence and quite a few questions to still get through.

Thanks again, Chair. A final one from me. I want to ask about the Valley stadium itself and dogs racing at the Valley stadium, indeed. What proportion are bred in Wales, because we understand that dogs bred in Ireland are being imported to Great Britain? To what extent are they raced at the Valley stadium and what are your views on the standards of welfare for dogs bred in Ireland?  

Do you want us to take this, Mark? 

I'll certainly start. Katie might want to comment on anything in particular at the track itself. So, let's be clear: the percentage of dogs that are imported into this country from Ireland is about 85 per cent; 15 per cent are British bred. We again, as a board, are keen to see that that 15 per cent increases, and there are incentives to try and get British-bred dogs to increase, not least for the fact that, obviously, we've had concerns in the past about dogs travelling over long distances from Ireland. That said, we're applying regulation on that as well. 

You also need to remember that dog racing in Ireland is semi state-run by the Government. Their checks and balances and their regulations have increased substantially over the last few years. I note, again, from one of your sessions of evidence that there was constant conversation about the traceability of dogs in Ireland. Since 2021, Greyhound Racing Ireland, the semi state-run regulator, has a full traceability system in place, to make sure all their dogs, from birth to when they finish racing, are accounted for. So, that argument has fallen largely away from some of the concerns that were being raised. And those concerns pre-dating 2021 were with the Westminster Government as well. So, as I said, an 85 per cent to 15 per cent split, although we would like to see an increase in British-bred dogs over here.

I don't know, Katie, if you want to talk about, specifically, any of your Welsh trainers or Wales-based trainers that are breeding at all.

Yes. Like Mark says, the majority of the dogs raced at the Valley—I don't know the exact statistic—would come across from Ireland. But some of the trainers would be keen to potentially look into doing some breeding, but, obviously, with the current situation, everything's up in the air, and to commit to doing that at this time would be an unusual decision for them. Obviously, it would be nice to get more British bred and then we could ensure the welfare all the way through, because the GBGB would have the visibility.

And where sometimes people have said about wastage in the industry, I mean, in terms of homing greyhounds, if you have a small greyhound that doesn't chase, they make the easiest pets to home. The phrase of 'discarding wastage' wouldn't be—. A young greyhound would home really quickly in the majority of homes.

I'm just curious, really, as to why there's such a disparity. Those figures—85 per cent of dogs being bred in Ireland compared to in 15 per cent in Great Britain—what's the reason for that? And then: how do you see progress or avenues being made into how we increase breeding within Great Britain in-house, if you like, so we're not so reliant on Irish-bred dogs racing in Britain? Just as a curious point, really, or a curious question, I should say.

Thank you. I can see Richard's indicated and then I want to bring Llyr Gruffydd in as well with a question.

Just in response to Gareth's question, I think the most immediate answer is it's just more culturally endemic in Ireland, with generation after generation being involved in the breeding of greyhounds. It certainly helps, as a state-funded institution in Ireland, that money goes directly to support breeding as well as other aspects of greyhound racing within the country. So, I think those would be the two main points that I would make, Gareth: it is that cultural legacy, and the fact that there is direct financial support for breeding, from the Government, in Ireland. So, if the Senedd would like to consider any encouragement and financing the breeding of greyhounds in Wales, I'm sure that Katie and the trainers at the Valley would take you up on that.

Thanks.

Thank you. Madeleine.

Thank you. And just to answer the question about what is being done to support British breeding, the GBGB has recently completed an incredibly comprehensive piece of advice around early years of greyhounds, which includes a lot of advice around breeding, and we're offering that as support to British breeders. It's also being shared through the international greyhound regulator's welfare group, of course, with our Irish counterparts, so that we can try and have equivalent standards across jurisdictions. And also a huge educational programme for greyhound breeders with, for example, webinars from internationally recognised experts such as Professor Gary England, around breeding, and webinars on nutrition and so forth, so making sure, also, that we're fully informed.

Thank you very much. Llyr.

I'm just going to ask about full traceability of dogs being raced in the UK, then. There's full traceability for all dogs being raced in the UK. There we are, I just wanted to confirm that on the record. Okay, thank you.

Thank you very much. No further points on those, no. Can I therefore ask, in terms of, perhaps, unintended consequences of this Bill, do you think there's a risk that other dog breeds or crosses might be used if greyhound racing is banned? Would anyone like to go on this one? Mark and then Richard.

It's a case of why not, why wouldn't they be? There are already incidents in terms of whippet racing going on, which is not regulated by any particular body; you've got saluki races, which are all done for exhibitionism, but there's nothing to say here in the Bill as it's currently worded that you couldn't use cross breeds.

And obviously you then go on to the question about, it says 'around an oval track' at the moment, and I know you've been discussing whether or not straight racing should be included in this. But it's like anything else: if you put regulation in, especially legislation, then you're going to be looking at people will try to find a way around it. Certainly, my old maxim as a police officer, the whole idea of driving something underground means that you've got a bigger problem than the one you first started with. Only last month, I think it was, in the Welsh National Farmers Union Farmers Weekly, they were talking about what's been occurring with regard to illegal hare coursing in south Wales. So, there are unintended consequences of what you as a Government are putting into this particular ban. So, yes, other dog breeds could be used in terms of racing.

Thank you. Just to clarify, we're the cross-party group here, not the Welsh Government.

No, I accept that.

So, we're scrutinising those decisions. I know Richard had indicated, then I'll bring you in, Lee. 

Mark's already covered the point with regard to coursing and illegal activity with greyhounds and other similar sighthound breeds.

Thank you. Lee.

I just want to follow up with Richard, really, on that point. From a commercial point of view, what is the market appetite for other types of racing, as envisaged in the unintended consequences that we've just mentioned?

None. Greyhounds would be the only commercially viable form of a betting opportunity, but that doesn't mean unintended consequences for coursing, for individuals meeting up with greyhounds in fields for any illegal activities and illegal forms of gambling. 

Sure. Well, as an industry at scale, we heard earlier that the typical attendance at the Valley stadium is roughly 150 over the course of a week, so this is primarily an activity done for betting markets and for broadcast, and you, as the broadcaster, are saying that the unintended consequences Mark Bird is warning about would not find a commercial market.

They would not find a commercial market, but they would certainly find an illegal market.

Sure. But that would be on the margins, presumably.

It's very difficult to assess or to give an opinion on what does and doesn't happen within that black market element of the economy. If I just answer your question about the Valley and the attendance, I think the main driver, as Katie said in her response on attendance, is when does the track race. At the moment, the Valley only races occasionally on a Saturday night; it doesn't race on a Friday night. Those are the two key retail onsite meetings where you would expect to see a lot of local people.

It's not a lot of local people; these are very small numbers.

Well, you look at tracks that race regularly on a Friday or a Saturday night, and the familiarity that racing on a regular or Friday-night slot brings—. As Mr Franklin said, the restaurant will be full on a Friday or Saturday night because the demand is there. The demand with the schedule of the Valley isn't there. And obviously the catchment area is a little bit smaller. But I think that probably doesn't tell the true picture of how people engage with greyhound racing these days. If you go back, you either watch greyhound racing by attending at the track, or you go to the betting shop and listen to the commentary.

And my question specifically was looking at the unintended consequences and the potential of undergrounding, as it were, and I just wanted to check, from a commercial point of view, whether or not you thought there's an appetite for this, and you confirmed that you don't.

No.

Thank you.

Thank you. I think Mark may have indicated. Was there anything to add? No. Okay. Thank you. 

Can I just ask—? We're going into our final 15 minutes now, so if I may ask for brevity in responses. Can you, perhaps, discuss with us the economic and cultural impact of the proposed ban on greyhound racing? There have been some comments made already around this. Richard.

I can kick off by saying that following the decision by Valley to race under rules and to become a regulated track, and having witnessed the significant investment they've made in the facilities, we were glad to enter into an agreement with them for the distribution of racing. Our conservative estimate is that the value of that commitment is £15 million going into Valley over the next five years, purely for media rights payments. And as the dogs themselves don't draw a wage, the vast majority of that money, I'm sure, is taken up by people who live in the local community.

I think Katie has referenced in her submission that there are 85 people directly employed with the staging of racing at the track, whether that be trainers, kennel hands, racing office staff, hospitality staff, track maintenance staff, veterinarians. So, those people directly involved in the staging of racing, and that local community, would be the main beneficiary of that money.

I'd also like to touch on the economic impact, because it's something that has not been given any weight or gravity in the rush to get this Bill through, and has not been touched upon yet in the implementation group, which I sit on, alongside Katie. And that is the issue of what happens to the trainers who currently reside in Wales, but then to decide to race their greyhounds in England, where it is a legal activity.

You have trainers, currently, that live in England and bring their dogs to Wales, and conversely, you have trainers that live in Wales and race their—[Inaudible.]—and one more maybe at Swindon until that goes for housing, but then Towcester and Oxford. So, one of the economic unintended consequences—[Inaudible.]—the manner in which it is being proposed is that those dogs that currently race at Valley will simply race across the border. Their racing experience will just be bookended by an hour and a half's journey each way. So, I don't see anything in the ban, and the way that it has been rushed through, that is taking in those sorts of considerations. 

Thank you. I would like to move on to some final questions from Llyr Gruffydd. If I can bring you in, Llyr, diolch. 

Thank you. We touched on the commercial viability of racing different breeds; I think it was Mark who touched on the straight racing in Australia. Is that commercially viable?

Richard might be able to tell you more as a media provider, but my understanding is that it is to a point. It doesn't take in as much revenue as normal greyhound racing, to use the vernacular, but, of course, it's a fairly new initiative. So, it is commercial, otherwise the Australians wouldn't have built the tracks in the first place, of which there are only a handful. It's something that may well subsequently grow. 

Okay, thank you. Can I just ask about the timescale for introducing a potential ban as well? Obviously, there's a three-year window, isn't there, between April 2027 and April 2030. Is that reasonable? Obviously, you see a wider issue with the whole thing. But, in terms of that, how do you feel that would play out in terms of being effective, sooner rather than later? Clearly, we have strong voices calling for it to happen in the first 12 months of that window. I'm presuming that you would want longer to wind things down. Mark.

I'm going to say 'yes', of course. If the Bill goes through, and it's Wales's decision to ban greyhound racing, then, clearly, there is that propensity that people may vote with their feet. Going back to what Richard said, some trainers may stop racing at the Valley, and decide to start focusing their racing attentions in England rather than Wales. 

You've got to understand with greyhound racing, whilst I've spoken about the 16 tracks that used to exist in Wales, that was very much on a hobby basis. This is now employment for people, it pays their mortgages, and, as I said, most of the people who run at the track, if not all of them, are Wales based. Therefore, they're going to consider whether or not they're going to move. They're going to consider adding extra journey times to what they're going to be doing.

There is, of course, a consequence to bringing that ban forward on the timescales that are currently there, albeit that you're going to have people who are going to be voting with their feet as well. Katie might know a little bit more about what people have said. They may decide to hang it out until the very last knockings before they decide to go. But the issue is never going to be about, as the charities have pointed out, the number of dogs that need to be homed, because most of those dogs are going to be racing greyhounds that will find places at other tracks to race. As Richard again reiterated, it's just the fact that trainers will be having to travel further, which again, arguably, creates a welfare problem, not deals with it. Katie, did you want to say any more about the track itself?

Just outside of the greyhound welfare, which we all understand is a huge priority for everyone, part of the implementation group's work is meant to be what use the site would have, and our people, and in the document released by the Deputy First Minister's staff, I assume, it said about retraining our staff, but there has not been one word mentioned in the implementation group or outside of that on what that will be, how that will be funded, are their salaries going to be matched. Everything is very up in the air. They're all employed at the moment. They've got a sustainable income. They are being paid regularly. They know what they're doing.

But with a phased ban, if it's a year, three years, five years—. Okay, if the phased ban came in at the end, which obviously the industry would want, it's still, at the end of that period, how are these people going to earn their income. If they stop greyhound racing and they all rehome their dogs like the charities want them to do, how are they going to earn a living, how are they going to pay their mortgages, how are they going to pay their bills. We've got people in the Valley where the parents work for us but their daughter is a trainer and then her family are employed. That's a whole multigenerational family. You're going to speak to her later on a panel. But these are questions outside of the dogs' welfare; there is also a huge human element to it that everyone seems to not want to discuss, and that is a huge consequence if the ban comes into place. How are all these people going to earn a living?

Thank you. Madeleine.

Thank you. Just a very brief comment just to flag that the greyhound welfare concerns around the timing of any proposed ban are something that the British Veterinary Association has been extremely concerned about, and in our written evidence we included some links to what they've been saying about that.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any more questions, Llyr? No. We've reached the end of our questions. Is there anything that any one of our witnesses would like to add? Katie.

Just that we would urge the committee members to come and visit the track, come and speak to some of the people, come and see our facilities, because from the outset of this we've had a real lack of engagement with anyone. We've had very few visits. We've offered a number of invitations across different Members of the Senedd and the Government—I know you all fall into slightly different departments—including the Deputy First Minister, who still hasn't come. So, I would encourage you to do that, to come and see it for yourselves, because everyone who has done that has said, 'Oh, I didn't realise this—I didn't realise this. It's not completely what I've been told.' So, we are open and honest. We're transparent and we would welcome you all to come and see it.

Thank you for that invitation. Mark.

If, as the Deputy First Minister said, this Bill and this intention to ban greyhound racing is centred around animal welfare and not around a political fix—. Forgive me for saying that, but he made a comment this week about that. But this is a really disproportionate interference to those rights of those people who are employed in the sport. Rather than going for a ban, the Welsh Government had the opportunity to look at the potential for greater regulation, which the GBGB would have welcomed and I think people at the track would have welcomed as well. And going back to Simon's comments earlier about horse racing and the number of fatalities that are involved in that as a sport, they may have more money, but actually if it is genuinely about animal welfare, then I fail to understand why the Welsh Government is centering on greyhound racing, other than that potentially it's a soft target, rather than horse racing, for which there are three tracks in Wales. So, again, I would ask the committee to consider that as part of their deliberations.

Thank you. Richard and then Madeleine.

I'd just like to reiterate the points that have just been made, firstly by Mark, in terms of regulation. As a responsible broadcaster, we're very keen to work with established regulatory bodies. The situation with the Valley prior to November 2023—. It seems that the track has been in existence for a long period of time, has reacted to calls for improved standards, invested millions of pounds in improving both the configuration of the track and all of the associated kennelling and veterinary facilities. To invest that money and then to have greyhound racing being banned without giving any reasonable time to see the impact that the regulation will have in Wales—. It seems very disjointed to allow a business to go through planning processes and invest that level of money to then turn around and take that business away without giving regulation a fair opportunity to demonstrate how successful it can be in Wales. 

That feeds in to my second point. Yes, welfare remains central to everything regarding greyhound racing and what happens in Wales, but there has been no serious conversation about economic impact. It seems very much to be an afterthought for the millions of pounds that have already been invested, the millions of pounds that will be delivered into the local community at Valley through its media rights, and what the compensatory and impact costs would be if racing was to be banned, both to the individuals employed at the track and the owners themselves.