An Enviable Profession
Michael Watts MRCVS
Word is the curse of the drinking classes for sure, but bills seem to keep on hitting the doormat and ignoring them, while often tempting, in seldom wise. Thus it was that when the members of the Environment Food & Rural Affairs Committee (the EFRACom) filed into Westminster Hall on the afternoon of December 15th last I was elsewhere in the pursuit of Mammon while to one on my mentors, a onetime track vet who, lucky beggar, is easing himself into retirement and thus has more time on his hands that than the rest of us self-employed paupers, was delegated the task of following their deliberations and reporting the outcome.
It is a heck of a job but somebody has to do it. That is not to say that this gent volunteered to fight his way through the crowded streets of London SW1 to hear the cut and thrust of the debate in the very hall where King Richard III once staged a banquet for three thousand hungry supporters and where Cromwell was sworn in as dictator. No, the following of deliberations was scheduled to take place in the privacy of his own home, thanks to the marvel of the age that is Parliament TV. Now I am about a likely to volunteer for experimental rectal surgery as I am to take an interest in politics, but I must confess that it is more than somewhat satisfying to be able to see what the suits in the Westminster Village are doing to justify the generous salaries we feel constrained to pay them. Democracy may be the worst form of government but it is redeemed in large degree by liberal doses of transparency. Thus it was that my man on the ground was able to report every word that was exchanged in that venerable chamber, record every gesture and savour every nuance from the comfort of a favourite armchair, pen and paper in hand and a can of London Pride within easy reach for medicinal purposes.
Not being the most avid of political animals, the significance of this being a Westminster Hall debate was lost on me at first, necessitating recourse to my favourite search engine in search of clarification. Other internet search engines are of course available. Seemingly Westminster Hall debates are designed to give MPs an opportunity to raise local or national issues and receive a response from the relevant government minister. Any MP can take part in them and the quorum required for a Westminster Hall sitting is just three including the chairperson. Debates in Westminster Hall take place on what are styled ‘general debate’ motions expressed in neutral terms. Amendments to the motion under debate cannot be tabled and votes do not take place there, although in some circumstances a vote in the main chamber may follow a Westminster Hall debate. There is plenty of material for pub quiz aficionados in that lot!
Readers with elephantine memories will recall that this time last year the EFRACom was conducting an inquiry into the welfare of race dogs which had been scheduled for five years after the passage into law of the Welfare of Racing Greyhound Regulations (2010). Their findings were published in February of this year and the Government’s response to them in June. What then is the point of yet more debate on the issue six months later, especially if no amendment can be made to the motion up for debate and no vote can be taken after all debate has concluded? To be blunt, in the words of our reporter on the couch Mr.Fawkes, is it just a colossal waste of public money?
Among the salient points jotted down by our informant during the course of the debate, in order of scrawling rather than of importance, was that there were currently around fifteen thousand active racing greyhounds in the U.K. Our political correspondent suggests that these figures may date back to 2014, but may be the most recent figures that the EFRACom had to hand when they started their deliberations. Of those greyhounds that leave the racing strength each year, currently something like three thousand five hundred are unaccounted for. Some of these have undoubtedly been kept by their racing owners or trainers as pets or from breeding purposes. Others too have been rehomed as pets privately by their owners or through some of the smaller local charitable groups.
Equally however some have undoubtedly left this veil of tears at a young age and for no terribly convincing reason other than that their connections no longer wished to persevere with them. It shouldn’t happen, but it does. Did I just say that a greyhound is for life and not just for racing? I did, and in words of one syllable. The euthanasia of greyhounds for essentially economic reasons rather than because they have life-limiting illness or injuries tarnishes the reputation of our sport and, until it finally ceases, we should expect periodic investigations by government and media into the greyhound game. There were repeated calls from those attending the EFRACom debate for the immediate introduction of the publication of an accurate breakdown of the fate of greyhounds leaving the industry. We industry insiders have within our power the ability to account for every single greyhound no longer required for racing if we wished. It is past time we got our fingers out and did it. Sermon over!
The Chair and Committee Members then turned their attention to financial matters. Our friends the bookmaking fraternity had a turnover from greyhound racing of around £230 million back in 2014. It is nice work if you can get it. Of this about £33 million was paid back to the industry as fees for televised racing and so forth. Now this looks a lot less than the £230 million mentioned earlier but it important to remember that this is the amount of punters’ money that passed through the bookies’ hands, not the amount that stuck to their fingers, which presumably was much less. Off-course betting turnover came to around £13 billion for the same period, during which BAGS paid some £26 million to tracks. There were loud and repeated calls from the MPs for the replacement of the current voluntary level of 0.6% by a statutory levy of 1%. The frustration of the politicos over the online gambling businesses failure to contribute one penny towards the greyhound industry or greyhound welfare was palpable. There were calls for those bookmakers who do not currently pay the voluntary levy to be named and shamed.
One prominent betting exchange was particularly singled out for adverse criticism. I don’t know if Parliamentary Privilege applies to Westminster Hall debates, but I am not naming names here just to be on the safe side. Without competitive sports there would be no bookies, so it is not unreasonable to ask them to kick back some of their profits to the greyhound industry. After all, the goose will not continue to lay golden eggs indefinitely if she is not fed on a regular basis. If the names of those firms that do pay the voluntary levy were made public then punters could transfer their allegiance to them and bet their hard-earned with those who contribute to the success of the industry. Fair is fair. George Eustice, who has been the Minister of State at DEFRA since the last general election, reminded those present that the industry was free to name those bookmakers who paid the voluntary levy and to shame those who did not. Playing what seemed to onlookers like the deadest of dead bats, he seemed in no hurry to endorse the calls for a statutory levy. That is laissez-faire capitalism for you, I suppose. In much the same vein, he reportedly said that the G.B.G.B were not being pressed to release the injury and euthanasia figures that they had was because although they had been collecting the data for some years that had not so far collated it all. Maybe I misunderstood this point. I must delve into the pages of Hansard and check.
One of the issues surrounding the Welfare of Racing Greyhounds Regulations 2010 is the extent of their influence and responsibility. As I never tire of trying to explain to anybody who will listen long enough, they do not do what it says on the tin. The original purpose of the Regulations was to ensure that welfare standards at the independent tracks were comparable to those in the G.B.G.B. sector. As such they only deal with welfare issues at the track itself. This has been a bone of contention in the past and, unsurprisingly, the Westminster Hall debate included vociferous and repeated calls for the extension of the Regulations to include welfare standards at trainers’ residential kennels. Mr.Eustice advised those present that the G.B.G.B had agreed to work with the British Standards Institute to develop a Publicly Available Specification, PAS 251, for trainers’ kennels. Sadly no timescale seems to have been agreed for this but the first meeting of the steering committee is scheduled for 17th January ’17 so at least the ball should soon start rolling.
The G.B.G.B favour this approach as it is consistent with their existing U.K.A.S accreditation model. Sticking with the philosophy that originally underlay the Regulations, DEFRA would it seems like to extend the PAS 251 to cover the kennels of those who race solely on the independent circuit as well as the G.B.G.B-licensed trainers. While I wish both the G.B.G.B and the Men from the Ministry well on this one, the biggest obstacle to improving welfare standards in trainers’ kennels is the poor financial rewards for training greyhounds. If PAS 251 sets the bar too high it may drive hard-pressed trainers out of the greyhound game. Too low, and it sells the greyhounds short.
Did the EFRACom sound a ringing endorsement of self-regulation of the greyhound industry as it is currently practiced? I rather think not, but given the complexion of the current Government it is hard to see it changing much, more is the pity.
Famously you can fool some of the people all the time and all the people some of the time. Knowing that I am always a sucker for a quotable quote, our correspondent Mr. Fawkes tells me that one of the speakers in Westminster Hall that Winter evening described my chosen trade as “an enviable profession, a wonderful mix of mental and manual skill applied in a socially acceptable way”. While blushing at such fulsome praise, I feel myself that the love of money has led a once eminent profession down some fairly socially unacceptable paths and I do not envy the new recruits to the veterinary game facing the austerity of a post-Brexit Britain while still heavily burdened with student debt. The impression was gained by listeners to the Westminster Hall discussions that there was a feeling among the members of the EFRACom that the statutory presence of vets at tracks meant that welfare issues there were pretty much done and dusted. DEFRA in contrast seem to be less than happy with the role of the track vet as defined in the Regulations. They want to clarify the nature of the required veterinary inspection, review the facilities required for the attending veterinary surgeon and re-define the responsibilities of track operators in relation to the track vet.
So was the whole Westminster hall debate a waste of time and money, a bit of a damp squib? I think not, in as much as it offered a forum for dissenting voices to make themselves heard. It also created an opportunity for the Powers-That-Be to parry those dissenting arguments, although when push came to shove them made signally poor use of it. It was not a revolution, throwing over the old order, but it was a shot, maybe even an opening salvo, in the right direction.
Happy Christmas!
